This is going to make the irrational Earth Firsters insane:
With gasoline prices up and his political standing down, President Bush on Wednesday proposed several new energy initiatives, including the novel idea of using shuttered military bases as sites for oil refineries.
The president directed the federal agencies to work with communities to see if refineries can be built on the closed bases, and he called on Congress to provide “risk insurance” to protect companies against regulatory delays.He also called for building more nuclear power plants, along with the refineries, saying that industry needs to be assured that such facilities can be approved without lengthy permit reviews. And he called for Congress to enact $2.5 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for people who buy gas-electric and clean-diesel automobiles. These cars account for only a small percentage of vehicles in showrooms.
The last application for a new reactor was submitted in 1973. Since then, Bush said, more than 35 nuclear power plants have been stopped “because of bureaucratic obstacles” while France has built 58 reactors and now relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its electricity.
If you have been fun watching the GOP tear itself apart recently, sit back and make some popcorn, because nothing is more fun than watching moderate Dems attack the Greens. Good, clean fun for the whole Republican family.
All things considered, I would like more incentives for green technologies and alternative fuel sources and I would really like a serious re-appraisal of the CAFE standards.
Good post here by Ezra Klein, and it appears that Ezra agrees with the tax rebates for hybrids approach.
Mr Furious
“All things considered, I would like more incentives for green technologies and aternative fuel sources and I would really like a serious re-appraisal of the CAFE standards.”
You and me both. Of course, green tech is not the business this Administration (and other powers in DC) is intimate with, so that won’t happen, and it’s been well-demonstrated that there is no courage on CAFE standards…
The hybrid incentive is a great idea, back it up with the elimination of the SUV tax exemption. And while we’re at it close the loopholes that classify SUVs as “work” trucks instead of the passenger vehicles/family cars they are now built and marketed as.
Ezra Klein has a gas tax/guzzler fee post up that’s worth reading. Check it out.
Steven
I had to laugh at the TV clips of the Saudis in Texas. Yes, we’ll pump a million barrels a day more at $50 a barrel, but oh by the way, you don’t have enough refinery capacity to use it. You just knew they were previewing the new energy policy. And those extra barrels–that’s more than $18 billion a year in extra revenue. The Saudis can buy a lot of peace with that.
Bob Munck
Nobody’s going to attack anybody about this, because it’s just stupid. In a country with 3.5 million square miles of land, do you think that the reason we’re not building more refineries is not having random pieces of land to put them on? The problem is finding places where you can get the crude oil to them and the products from them to the consumer, and where local governments are willing to support the environmental effects of the plant. They’re not going to put refineries in the Presidio or Miramar or Ft. Monmouth. Anywhere that it’s possible to put a refinery, there’s already a huge amount of empty land.
Apparently there’s also a problem that refineries just aren’t profitable enough for the appetites of the oil companies, so they don’t really want to build any more. Heh.
John Cole
Bob- The N-Word involved is nuclear, not refinery.
And if you haven’t seen the Earth Firsters and environuts lose it over nuclear power, you have been sleeping.
Brad R.
And if you haven’t seen the Earth Firsters and environuts lose it over nuclear power, you have been sleeping.
Yeah, and we generally have Ralph Nader to thank for this. My litmus test is, “Look, use do it in France. How regressive can it be?” ;-)
Brad R.
Ack, shitty syntax! Should read: “Look, they use it in France, how regressive can it be?”
Kimmitt
The French have their own issues.
And he called for Congress to enact $2.5 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for people who buy gas-electric and clean-diesel automobiles.
So much for simplifying the tax code. But we knew that was empty rhetoric anyway.
Steven
And remember those tax breaks aren’t spending…they’re just returning the money to its rightful owners.
J. Caesar
It’s funny to see Republicans pointing to France and saying “Sacre bleu! We should be more like the French!”
Jon H
I’d like to see Congress push to have hybrid powertrains be an option in most car models by, say, 2010.
Ideally, it ought to be as mundane as choosing stick or automatic.
If automakers came up with a standardized hybrid package, it’d make the technology a whole bunch cheaper. Much better economies of scale than the current approach.
Even if we someday switch to hydrogen, it’d still be worthwhile to have those vehicles be hybrid hydrogen/electrics.
Jon H
Speaking of nukes vs. fossil, people often say about Iran, “what do they need nukes for? they have all kinds of oil and gas!”
Well, if I was Iran, I’d be thinking that every barrel of oil I used in country was a barrel of oil I couldn’t export for $50. Or $75. Or $99.
So if they can build some nuclear power plants, it’ll free up their fossil fuel resources for sale on the open markets, as oil prices rise in coming decades.
All this, of course, ignores the issue of their actual intentions. But if I was running Iran, I’d be saving oil and building nuclear power plants. After I shitcan the mullahs.
Ezra
You are so right on with the CAFE stuff it’s not even funny. The bipartisan effort to please Detroit is one of the great political scandals of our time…
John Cole
I am in the market for a car, and I won’t consider new. I only drive 3-4,000 miles a year, so a 4-5 year old car with 50-60k miles on it is all I need. At any rate, I simply can not believe how bad the fuel efficency for most cars is. The one that shocked me the most was Jeep Wranglers, which are essentially nothing to them, getting 14 mpg. My 83 Chevy Celebrity, before it died, did better than that.
Kimmitt
I had the same shock when shopping two years ago.
ppgaz
Um, the Jeep Wrangler is not a “car” by any stretch of the term. It is closer to being a truck, but it is not really a truck either.
It is a cult-loved “recreational vehicle” that has a core design that has not changed much in 40 years. It is not modern, it is not very safe, it is not economical, it is not comfortable, it is not quiet, it does not handle well, and it doesn’t haul much payload. The only thing it does well is climb over rocks, trees, and through mud puddles. I drove one for 5 years so I am pretty familiar with it.
Honestly, if you want people to take your car commentary seriously, you are going to have to make some serious comments.
What size car are you in the market for? A 4-year old Corolla, Civic or Focus (the best car of the three) will give you good mileage and very good value for a small car.
If you need something larger, look at the Malibu or the low-end Accord. Your Jeep reference makes me wonder if you might really need a truck. The used Dakota or Toyota would be good choices.
John Cole
Um, the Jeep Wrangler is not a “car” by any stretch of the term. It is closer to being a truck, but it is not really a truck either.
No- it is a Jeep, which is why I mentioned it- everyone knows what one is. I was shocked to learn how horrible the gas mileage is in the damned things, when the vehicle is so skimpy it can’t even keep the rain out.
It is not modern, it is not very safe, it is not economical, it is not comfortable, it is not quiet, it does not handle well, and it doesn’t haul much payload. The only thing it does well is climb over rocks, trees, and through mud puddles.
My point exactly. Changing CAFE standards would force modernization. There has got to be a way to make that vehicle more fuel efficient, as well as safer.
Honestly, if you want people to take your car commentary seriously, you are going to have to make some serious comments.
Honestly, if you are going to diss my car commentary, you are going to have to do something other than tell me the car whose fuel economy shocked me isn’t safe, efficient, convenient, or comfortable. You kind of reinforced my point.
At any rate, I most certainly do not want a truck, because then I will spend the next ten years hauling other people’s shit around. Not making that mistake.
Probably going to buy a used Honda Accord or something like that.
CadillaqJaq
Rhetorical rambling regarding tax breaks and potential lower fuel costs for proposed hybrid buyers must be weighed against their initial cost for the vehicle.
Two of my closest friends shopped several hybrid dealers in outstate Michigan only to find the dealers asking several thousand dollars above MSRP… at that rate you’d have to save a ton in fuel costs and hope that tax break is a whopper.
Maybe it’s just Michigan, but just for fun, take a test drive and ask for the price.
Jon H
“Maybe it’s just Michigan, but just for fun, take a test drive and ask for the price.”
It’s probably because of the high demand, and the limited supply, not a technology premium. There’s generally a significant wait list for hybrids.
Supposedly, even used hybrids are being sold above bluebook.
ppgaz
Well, John, I’m responding to a recent ministream of car comments coming out of your blog. Hard to follow them, really. I think you might be suffering from a little reality shock at what’s out there.
Used Accord, good choice.
I agree with you 68.301 percent of the time. When you consider that I am a Blue Dog Democrat and you are a Republican (the old fashioned, sensible-conservative kind as near as I can figure), that percentage really is pretty encouraging.
Avoid the Jeep. Even if you got 30 mpg in it, you’d hate it. Trust me. Unless you like to offroad, or have a vehicle you can bolt a snowplow onto.
John Cole
There is no doubt I am in shock. I can’t believe there is not more of a push for higher fuel efficiency by the auto makers themselves.
I would love a hybrid- but I don’t want to pay 40k for a car.
I have really liked the Honda’s I have tried. I really like the Subara Legacy sedan’s. I like the Nissan Altima’s, too.
Dave Ruddell
But John, haven’t you heard? Higher CAFE standards will kill people! You see, if your force car makers to increase fuel economy, they’ll have to make more small cars, which are more dangerous.
Nobody has ever explained to me why instead of making smaller cars, they just make cars with smaller (more fuel efficient) engines. Do you really need that V6 on your Camry? The V8 for your BMW?
over it
Here is my ‘car question’. I have only been driving for 2 years now. I have already gotten 3 speeding tickets(don’t bother chastising me, my ears are still ringing from the last one). I want to know why civilian cars can go so fast? If our roads all have speed limits of 80 or below…why does my car have a speedometer that reads up to 120? Now, I do not know if it actually can go that fast…but I do know that it can go faster than 85(and have a ticket to prove it). Do they only make them go faster so that they can make money off of speeding tickets? If cars were capable of only going but so fast…wouldn’t that mean that we would not have to use the big monster engines anymore? Would it not also save lives as well as gas? I don’t really know anything about cars so please don’t filet me if this is a stupid question.
Kimmitt
Once you build an engine that can put out the acceleration you need to merge onto a highway, that engine is pretty much going to be able to cruise at 90 MPH if you need it to.
It may be tuned to be most efficient at 55-60 MPH, but, well, you know.
over it
Yeah, I know. :P
Isn’t there some way to cap off the speed a vehicle can go though? Don’t they do that with School busses?
Because really, other than to go fast, why does a small car need a huge(gas guzzeling) engine? I can understand some of the bigger trucklike vehicle needing them to carry the weight…but they put the same size engines in coupes and sedans. Just does not make sense to me. It seems as though, with all of our great technology, we would be able to come up with an affordable engine that does not burn as much gas.
Though, it also seems to me like we should build all cars as well as race cars are built. Look at the crashes they walk away from. Think how many lives would be saved. And, yes, I know that that is not really feasible…but it would be nice.
Overall…I just think it is time for the car companies to pretty much start fresh. That new rules/laws should be made(with no influence from the oil companies). But, again, it is sadly not feasible.
Whatever the case….I am slowly saving my money so that I can one day buy a more effecient vehicle. At the least I can do my part. No matter how small.
Kimmitt
Because really, other than to go fast, why does a small car need a huge(gas guzzeling) engine?
Torque — improving acceleration makes the driving experience significantly more pleasurable. If you’re gonna be stuck in a car for 2 hours a day, there’s a strong case for making that period of time more fun.
Jon H
“Torque — improving acceleration makes the driving experience significantly more pleasurable. If you’re gonna be stuck in a car for 2 hours a day, there’s a strong case for making that period of time more fun”
Thus, buying a car with an over-large engine is an example of the behavior described by the phrase “if it feels good, do it.”
So, excessive torque should be opposed by Republicans.