Bush 'responding' to Supreme Court

Not exactly

Posted by David Roberts at 8:47 AM on 14 May 2007

Wondering what to make of this?

President Bush responded to a Supreme Court environmental ruling by settling on regulatory changes that don't need congressional approval, the White House said Monday.

Bush is announcing the steps he is directing his administration to take in a Rose Garden appearance later Monday.

Read on down a little bit:

In his State of the Union address in January, Bush set a goal of reducing gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years. Under his plan, this would be accomplished by increasing the use of alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons by 2017 and boosting fuel efficiency standards in new vehicles.

...

"He will ask the administration to start implementing the 20-in-10 program through regulatory action," [White House spokesman Tony] Snow said. "At the same time, he will continue to urge Congress to pass legislation to advance the goal."

You'll recall that the fuel-economy program described in Bush's SOTU speech was rather ... weak. And suffice to say, funneling a bunch of subsidies to Big Corn and Big Coal does not constitute a "response" to the Supreme Court ruling, which was about the EPA regulating CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. At least as described by the AP, this isn't that.

Update [2007-5-14 11:27:47 by David Roberts]: That's the big news? A weak-ass alternative fuels plan by 2008? How the mighty have fallen.

For story: Bush 'responding' to Supreme Court
8 Comments | Post a Comment

Easier Done, Than Said

Bush set a goal of reducing gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 years.

GM's Volt gets 150 mpg.

That will reduce gas consumption by 80 percent.

And it will be available in 2010.

Bush achieves his goal.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 8:59 AM on 14 May 2007

Heh

Well, I actually agree with that part Bailo.

Except the follow-through is also to get off Coal.

by GreyFlcn at 9:04 AM on 14 May 2007
[ Parent ]

So you're saying put CAFE at 150 mpg in 10 years?

Just checking--are you saying that we need CAFE standards to be set at 150 mpg in 10 years? Not that there's anything wrong with that--I'm just trying to clarify your position.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 10:18 AM on 14 May 2007
[ Parent ]

No

He's just saying that the Chevy Volt doesn't use much gas.

Theoretically it gets infinite gasoline mileage since it's an electric hybrid.

by GreyFlcn at 10:48 AM on 14 May 2007
[ Parent ]

That said

I don't trust GM ;D
And the Volt doesn't look all that practical.

However I do like their naming of the category of vehicle the Volt represents.

Unlike a PHEV (Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle) which has the conitation of a "Prius with a bigger battery"

I would call it an EREV (Extended Range Electric Vehicle)
Technically GM called their's a "car" instead of a "vehicle", but "E Rev" sounds pretty cool, and denotes a difference.

Essentially an EREV is a fully electric vehicle (EV), with the Extended Range and flexibility of a backup electric generator.

Good part about an EREV over a PHEV is that it doesn't have all the unneccisary parts of a gasoline drivetrain.

Which cuts down the cost and weight a lot.

A couple EV manufacturers are already looking at optional EREV capability :)

by GreyFlcn at 11:20 AM on 14 May 2007
[ Parent ]

Heh

Could even call it an "Extra Range Electric Vehicle"

To denote that the generator is for backup purposes.

by GreyFlcn at 11:24 AM on 14 May 2007
[ Parent ]

20% lower than what?

Wasn't one of the unreported loopholes in Bush's 20 in 10 plan that the goal was to be 20% below the expected 2017 consumption rate? That's a lot easier than 20% below today's consumption rate.

by meander at 10:42 PM on 14 May 2007

Bush is a joke

I find it hard to listen to anything Premiere Bush and the rest of our Comrades in Moscow DC. have to say concerning fuel economy and/or environmental change. Where would we be if he had not brought the federal government into the lawsuit to force California to abandon its clean air program in the 90's. Had the oil companies,Big three automakers, and the Federal Government been as concerned with improving the environment problems we face, as they are with the corporate profits that fund their campaigns, we would see large fleets of EV 1s on the road today. The government is only worried about stuffing the pockets of large corporations. They could care less about the environment or the American people in general.

The light at the end of the tunnel has ben turned off due to budget cuts...

by Stump at 4:46 PM on 24 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.