Editorial
The Democrats Lag on Warming Published: June 10, 2007
When Americans elected a Democratic Congress last November, they were voting to end politics as usual and special interest legislation.
On the vital issues of energy independence and global warming they are not only in danger of getting more of the same but also, unless Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders step forward, winding up in worse shape than they were under the Republicans.
Exhibit A is a regressive bill drafted by John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat. For starters, the bill would override the recent Supreme Court decision giving the Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, a decision that even President Bush has reluctantly embraced. It would also effectively block efforts by California and 11 other states to regulate and reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles at a time when the states are far ahead of the federal government in dealing with climate change.The
bill’s fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks are weaker than the president’s proposals and weaker still than standards the National Academy of Sciences says can be met using off-the-shelf technology. And the bill would open the door to a new generation of coal-to-liquid fuel plants favored by the coal lobby that could double the global warming gases of conventional gasoline. The prospects for useful energy legislation are better in the Senate, where the majority leader, Harry Reid, has cobbled together a package that, with strengthening amendments, could do much to increase efficiency, clean up power plants and enlarge the country’s stock of renewable fuels. Mr. Reid must guard against backsliding. But his task is easier than
Ms. Pelosi’s. He starts with a half-decent bill.
She has to play defense against a bad one whose resourceful architect, Mr. Dingell, while sound on most environmental issues, will do almost anything to protect his constituents in the automobile industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/opinion/10sun1.html?_r=1&oref=sloginGrrrr - reminds me of Gore testifying this Spring before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20070322&Category=AUTO01&ArtNo=703220347&Ref=V2&Profile=1148Q=100&MaxW=500Gore takes carmakers to task
Former VP pushes lawmakers to cap greenhouse gas-snip-
'
"Be careful what you lobby for," Gore said.
Blocking tougher fuel economy standards "has not been good for our auto industry."-snip-
"Look at the crisis the auto industry is in," Gore said, paraphrasing an apocryphal suggestion "that
for every 100 engineers the Japanese automakers hired, American companies hired 100 new lawyers" to lobby against tougher regulations.He praised Toyota for developing environmentally efficient cars. But he also said health care and other legacy costs need to be solved.
The Big Three's medical tab topped $10 billion in 2005.
A main reason "our auto companies are in trouble" is "they got all these gas guzzlers they can't sell that people don't want to buy," Gore told the Senate Environment panel in the afternoon session.
He said automakers shouldn't shoulder all the costs. "It's only a slice of the problem, but it's a significant part of it."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/AUTO01/703220347/1148 "Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" is definitely one aspect of what has so hurt the US auto industry.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
