Grist.org may be misleading readers about JK's environmental policies

The Gas Menagerie
Obama leads bipartisan effort to raise fuel-economy standards

--snip --

Together with seven other senators -- Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- Obama introduced legislation last week that would raise fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. by 4 percent, or about one mile per gallon, each year. Its sponsors say the bill would reduce America's oil consumption by 1.3 million barrels daily within a decade; that amounts to 16 percent of the current consumption of America's passenger vehicle fleet of 8 million barrels per day.

--snip --

But while Hwang says he thinks the bill has a "50-50 chance" of passing in the Senate, Becker is not so optimistic. "I'd be lying to you if I said this had a decent chance of passing in this Congress," he said. "The automakers' stranglehold on Washington is too tight."

This was evident in 2005, the last time a Senate fuel-economy measure was proposed, when a whopping 67 senators -- including John Kerry and Hillary Clinton -- voted against it. And though fuel-economy advocates led by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) have recently been building steady support for a CAFE reform bill in the House, the Republican leadership has refused to allow a vote on it, fearing it might come too close to passing.

Unless there's a dramatic shift in the congressional makeup after this November's midterm election, contends Becker, the only hope of passing fuel-economy increases in the near future would be "a major supply disruption that sends gas prices through the roof, double or triple where they are today." Sadly, such a disruption -- which could be triggered by a terrorist attack on pipelines or refineries due to escalating conflict in the Middle East -- looks more conceivable than ever.

John Kerry Says Proposed Fuel Economy Standards Don’t Address Problems with Foreign Oil, High Gas Prices

Senator John Kerry today issued the following statement on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

“This is a pessimistic decision. It says that America won’t (be) innovative, won’t lead and won’t create a better future through better technology like we know we can. It is backward looking, and it will bring us more dependence on unreliable foreign oil, more pollution and higher gasoline costs for American families. It protects the status quo and is another lost opportunity to help our security, economy and environment.”

NRDC energy expert Ashok Gupta hopes the legislation's sponsors will add a clear directive calling for stronger auto fuel-economy standards. But, he said, even in its current form, the bill "stipulates oil-savings targets ambitious enough that the White House would inevitably be forced to promote increases to fuel efficiency one way or another." Gupta argues that the ambitious oil-savings targets in Bingaman's bill are far more politically practicable than stronger CAFE standards, particularly in an election year.

"Like it or not, Detroit still has tremendous sway in Washington," says Gupta. He notes that in the last Senate vote on CAFE, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry (D-Mass) voted against raising standards, presumably because burning bridges with the auto lobby could hamper their presidential ambitions.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support what Senator Durbin is trying to achieve with this amendment regarding CAFE standards. Over the past few years, I have looked closely at this issue and believe strongly that we need a consensus path forward. I do not believe, however, that Senator Durbin's amendment or Senator Bond's amendment will achieve that goal. I have followed closely the information available from the National Academy of Sciences and have spoken with labor groups, automobile manufacturers, and environmental groups. We can, and must, significantly increase the efficiency of our automobile fleet, but we cannot do it without creating new incentives for automobile manufacturers to retool plants to produce advanced technology, more efficient vehicles, and lead the way toward an energy-independent America.

Building the cars of the future – fuel-efficient, advanced-technology vehicles – will require automakers and their suppliers to retool their factories. I believe the federal government has a responsibility to help them remain competitive. Tax credits will help support the necessary investments, make the new technologies cost effective, and create jobs for the workers who will build the cars of the future and help consumers buy them. We should commit $3 billion to this effort in tax credits over the next five years – tax credits that will not only help reduce oil dependence but which will pay for themselves through tax revenue generated by the growth and productivity that follow.

But like all the funding in my proposal, let’s not leave it subject to the whims of Congress and an army of appropriators. We need to create a new security and conservation trust fund to guarantee the resources to move the nation towards energy independence. This isn’t a matter of capacity, it’s a matter of willpower. We have the money, the question is whether we have the right priorities. Just by rolling back the tax breaks for big oil which even President Bush opposes, and by renegotiating oil leases, we can invest in a fund for energy security.

Instead of a tax code that works for the K Street lobbyists, let’s provide an aggressive set of tax incentives and grants to ensure that by 2020, 20 percent of all passenger cars and trucks on the road will be fuel efficient, low emissions hybrid vehicles. Sure, hybrid vehicles are more expensive today. But they don’t have to be if we put a little presidential muscle behind them. The doors of college were only open to the rich and powerful until President Lincoln pioneered a system of Land Grant Colleges that gave us UMass and URI and the University of Connecticut. After World War II, highways and roads were underfunded by local governments and some were unusable until President Eisenhower pushed through a national highway system. You want hybrid vehicles out on those highways? Make it affordable for Americans to buy American hybrids – because that’s a hell of a lot better than subsidizing Saudi sheiks who look the other way while madrassas teach kids hatred and violence.