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.

Environment

How We Can Save Money and Cut Our Dependence on Foreign Oil

The Progress Report. Posted December 4, 2007.


Congress needs to pass the energy bill to raise fuel efficiency standards and increase utilities' use of renewable energy sources.
Advertisement

This story was written by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, and Ali Frick.

The last time Congress set corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards -- mandating a 25-mile-per-gallon standard for cars -- Gerald Ford was in the White House, Jaws was showing in movie theaters, and disco was king.

But on Friday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced a historic new agreement with House Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), supported by the major automakers, that allows the House to move forward with its stalled energy bill.

The agreement would set CAFE standards at a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon, but would separate standards for SUVs and light trucks in an important compromise to automakers. The proposed energy bill, in the final stages of negotiation, would also vastly increase the use of biofuels, such as "cellulosic" ethanol, a more efficient biofuel than corn ethanol, and require utility companies to generate 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources, such as wind or solar.

Despite the hard-fought bipartisan support for this bill, the White House has threatened to veto it.

When he signed the first CAFE standard into law in 1975, President Ford admitted the law was hardly perfect, yet he recognized that "[t]he single most important energy objective for the United States today is to resolve our internal differences and put ourselves on the road toward energy independence." "If I were to veto this bill, the debates of the past year would almost surely continue through the election year and beyond. The temptation to politicize the debate would be powerful, and the Nation could become further divided," Ford said.

Hopefully, Congress can push ahead to pass this historic bill and President Bush can recognize, as Ford did, how even what he may deem an imperfect energy bill serves the national interest.

CAFE Standards

With oil futures "up about 76 percent from this year's lowest levels, in January," and Americans concerned about global warming and national security, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) said the timing presented "a perfect political moment" to take action.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) forecasted that the new CAFE standards would result in a lifetime savings to car owners of roughly $4,500 and, more importantly, cut oil imports by 1.1 million barrels per day in 2020, equal to half the amount currently imported from the entire Persian Gulf.

Had these standards been fully implemented today, the average driver would have used 160 fewer gallons of gas, and saved $420 this year. "This agreement breaks 30 years of gridlock on fuel economy. ... This is a victory for Americans struggling with $3 per gallon gasoline and would deliver savings of more than $20 billion in 2020," said UCS's David Friedman.

The support of the auto industry, along with Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI),  is key to the measure's success. Rick Wagoner, chairman and CEO of General Motors called the CAFE measures "tough" but assured that "GM is prepared to put forth its best effort" to meet them.

Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the trade group that represents Detroit's Big Three, Toyota, Daimler AG, and five other automakers, said that "this tough national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage." "This vehicle fuel economy agreement is the single most important step Congress can take to reduce our energy costs and dependence on Mideast oil," said Mark Cooper, Director of Research for the Consumer Federation of America. " Now it's up to Congress and President Bush to leave the past behind once and for all by prompt passage of and signature on these 21st Century fuel economy standards," said Dan Weiss, a fellow at the Center for American Progress.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, cafe, fuel efficiency, renewable energy, energy bill, pelosi, dingell

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! 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:
WRONG WAY
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 5, 2007 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cutting Our Dependence on Foreign Oil is Exactly the WRONG
thing to do. We should cut our dependence on American oil,
keeping it in the ground to threaten OPEC with. If we use up our
oil, we become much more dependent on THEIR oil. We should
DRAIN THE MIDDLE EAST FIRST. The people who want to
"Cut Our Dependence on Foreign Oil" are traitors.

Pickup "trucks" and SUVs ARE CARS! If you don't understand
this, read this Book: "How to Tell Which New Car Will Last
Longer," which is now available for download as .pdf, an Adobe
Acrobat document. See:
http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/title
/how-to-tell-which-new-car-
will-last-longer-greisch-ebooks.htm
Real trucks are built to a very different standard.

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

The Truth about Nuclear Power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 5, 2007 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read a Truthful book about nuclear power:
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy," by B. Comby
This book is available at:
http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm

This book says:
Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's
atmosphere (CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and
changeing the global climate by increasing the greenhouse effect,
while nuclear energy does not participate in these pollutions and
presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the
amount of energy required by populations in developing and
developed countries, nuclear energy is in fact the only clean and
safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI st
century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the
Chernobyl accident, the public health problems our society has to
face, viable solutions for nuclear waste, the benefits of clean
nuclear energy for the environment, and important information
about the future of our planet.
Back cover - Table of contents - Introduction by James Lovelock -

Read a Review of this book by the American Health Physics
Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/articles
/articles.in.english/HealthPhysics-
NUC-July2002.htm

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

What happens if we Don't change from COAL to Nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 5, 2007 3:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nature's eventual wrath and retaliation includes:
1. The impending EXTINCTION of human life in maybe 1 or 2 centuries.

2. The downfall of civilization a lot sooner than our extinction.

1. The Existential Risk that is virtually certain to happen if we don't mend our coal
burning ways is the same as the End Permian mass extinction: Hydrogen Sulfide
[H2S]. It is possible to avoid it, but the power of wealth must be overcome.
Coal is a $100 Billion [US] industry in the US alone. To avoid extinction, we
have to stop burning coal. download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?article
ID=00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American Article: "Impact from the
Deep": "Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same
killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?" By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says: "The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per
million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today
with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon
climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels
could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could
there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never
find out." The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of coal.
Nuclear power is the safest available. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op
=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=672

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html

http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/
prPennStateKump.htm

Reference Book: "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas. See a summary at:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/
six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees
-as-published-in-the-guardian

2. Reference Book: "The Long Summer, How Climate Changed Civilization" by
Brian Fagan, 2004 Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02281-2
Summary: Smaller climate changes than we have caused already, caused the fall
of many civilizations.
The fall of civilization may have the following "benefit": The burning of fossil
fuels may crash along with the crash of civilization and population. That would at
least postpone the even bigger disaster of human extinction. The bad news: YOU
should expect to be in the 99.99% that dies in a typical civilization crash.

There are 2 feasible ways to supply base load electricity to most of the world.
They are coal and nuclear. The so-called renewable sources of power are
inadequate, not available all the time, too remote or too expensive. Coal burning
causes global warming. Hydro power is the best, where available.

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