Bush Signs Massive Energy Bill Into Law

Yahoo news -AP Newswire ^ | Aug 8, 2:12 PM ET | DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

[joesnuffy]

"If you're in the market for a car, this bill will help you save up to $3,500 on a fuel-efficient hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle," Bush said.

My Cummins TD runs clean...but unless we quit selling our diesel to the Chi-Coms and Euro-weenies they will simply cost too much to run regardless..

Tell the EPA to get off the backs of the engine builders and let us have some of those clean burning inline 4 banger turbo diesels..

Dont let the Chi coms and the Euros use what little capacity we have to refine making fuel for them

imo

[alwaysconservative]

The Energy Policy

This contains incentives for bio-fuel products, extends DST for two months a year (which will make for statistically significant savings), makes the federal government a leader (rather than a wasteful follower) in finding and using energy saving products, and opens the door for private companies to develop and incentivize fuel alternatives. If you want solutions, this opens the door to market approaches, rather than government regulations.

As I said, not a perfect result, but a good start. For those who kvetch about energy companies reaping the benefits; yes, they are exempt from some draconian legal liability, and maybe, just maybe, they're the ones to propose the solutions to some of the problems we now see. This law removes barriers created by, ahem, previous administrations.

[oceanview]

if we had had a modest proposal for CAFE - 2 MPG every 5 years, over the last 20 years, the auto fleet would be much more fuel efficient today. instead, we did nothing, both parties are guilty in this.

[AmericanVictory]

Subsidizing particular products such as bio-fuels is not a solution, it is a subsidy. It is the opposite of letting the market operate. Choosing particular products of companies and industries with powerful lobbies is not only not a solution, it crowds out possible solutions. Government is terrible at picking which product will save energy, particularly when that product is plugged by powerful interests that have lobbying clout. Such efforts crowd out real solutions in favor of boondoggles, a mistake we have made since the 1973 embargo over and over again.

The daylight savings gambit is marginal.

Providing subsidies for alternative fuels repeatedly has failed because government is very bad at choosing what to subsidize. It crowds out actual solution because government chooses alternatives by name that are lobbied by powerful interests that advocate them. Alternatives in hydrodcarbon, for example, that would displace present gasoline and be much cheaper, more efficient, and get better mileage are offered no incentive because if that were done the gasoline you now must buy could be replaced by better fuel sold by someone other than those with the lobbying power.

When government starts incentivizing solutions rather than picking products of the powerful in Washington, you will see leadership, but not before.

[mugs99]

Nitrogen and water. Pollution free technology available now and developed by private industry with no government subsidies.
.

[mugs99]

No "energy plan" worth discussing would be focused upon short-term lowered consumer costs

There are steps that could be taken now to lower costs. Any energy plan worth discussing must include immediate results. We have had plan after plan going back to the seventies. This plan is no different than any of the previous plans. Just more corporate welfare and broken promises.
.

[mugs99]

When government starts incentivizing solutions rather than picking products of the powerful in Washington, you will see leadership, but not before

Government does not want a solution. They want to keep the graft.
.

[mugs99]

if we had had a modest proposal for CAFE

CAFE is a con job. Blaming private cars for all of our smog and energy problems is a bogus liberal scheme. Airplanes, ships and trucks use more fuel than automobiles. The port of Los Angeles uses more fuel and produces more smog than all of the cars in Los Angeles. Los Angeles International Airport uses more fuel and produces more smog than all of the cars in Los Angeles.

We have over forty different blends of gasoline in this country. We used to have two. The new blends have not delivered the results we were promised. We once had the best gas on the planet. Mexico now has better gas than us. Go back to two blends so refineries can produce more gas. That one step alone would reduce the price of gas.

Get the crackpot science out of energy politics and get rid of federal, state and local regulation that prevents private industry from developing alternative fuels.

The president has the power to mandate all of the above. Any resistance by crooked politicians could be nullified using the Commerce Clause. If we can use the Commerce Clause to stop sick hippies from smoking pot, we should be able to use it to stop an energy crisis...If there really is an energy crisis.
.

[mugs99]

kay I'll snap my fingers, and voila 75 cent a gallon gas.(rolling eyes)

Just return to two blends of gasoline, and voila under one dollar a gallon gas instantly.
.

[mugs99]

ANWR drilling

How much oil are we talking about? Are you aware that we don't even know if there is any ANWR oil? How will drilling in ANWR solve any problems if there is no oil there?

We need a real energy plan that is not dependent on luck.
.

[oceanview]

CAFE has nothing to do with auto emissions.

its simply a discussion of fuel economy. A modest CAFE increase over the last twenty years would have forced the auto makers to invest in technology to improve mileage and lower vehicle weight through increased use of composites (for example). Our auto fleet could have had an 8 MPG increase in fuel mileage today, had we had this in place for the last 20 years. We blew it.

[mugs99]

CAFE has nothing to do with auto emissions

We were told it did. We were told increasing mpg would decrease pollution. It didn't for the simple reason that the automobile is not the major contributor to pollution.

A modest CAFE increase over the last twenty years would have forced the auto makers to invest in technology to improve mileage and lower vehicle weight through increased use of composites

What technology are you referring to? We are already using composites. Is there some miracle chip out there that will solve our problem?
Why not ban petroleum and force the auto industry to use methane or vegetable oil? The internal combustion engine is not dependent on gasoline.

The CAFE standards increased the cost of cars and energy. It takes more energy to manufacture a car that meets the standards. You are not saving fuel. You may not pay the increased fuel cost at the pump, but you pay it in the purchase price and the maintenance. CAFE cars require more expensive maintenance than the old cars.

They also promised us that the CAFE standards would conserve fuel and lower the cost of gasoline. They lied. Gas prices started skyrocketing as soon as CAFE was passed and have continued to this day.

The real question...Is there really an energy crisis or is all of this just another con job to scare the public and increase profits?
.