Skip to comments.President Bush on CAFE Standards and Alternative Fuels
Posted on 05/15/2007 6:03:42 AM PDT by P-40
President Bush on CAFE Standards and Alternative Fuels
Pres. Bush makes remarks on alternative fuel and auto efficiency standards at the White House.
5/14/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 5 min.
Another example of why it is SO important to elect Republicans </Sarcasm>
This is one of the unintended consequences when government assumes it can choose winning technology. It would have been far less disruptive to adopt policy that changed incentives, such as lower emissions, etc. and let the market work it out over time.
The President wants to see more “biofuels”, whatever that will be defined as. If this is a code word for ethanol, then the issue is that there is only enough corn to supply 12% of our fuel needs. Putting aside the complication that we are using corn for food, where will the other 8% come from? Fuels that can be used in diesel engines? And just how many new cars are being sold that have diesels and how many of them are produced in the US?
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that there are any US autos that have diesel engines. (Freepers know of any?) And the reason? Well, one good reason is the EPA regulations.
So, yet again, domestic policy runs smack into a wall of our own making. What one branch of government wants, another branch works to make impossible, apart what happens when government thinks that edicts and announcements don’t have any market consequences.
It sounds like the President did a good job of speaking to what the American people are calling for.
CAFE. Isn’t that the law that killed a lot of people by forcing the automakers to trim too much weight from their cars before safe, lightweight frames were invented?
I think the government should leave the car makers alone. They have new green models, and they also are restructuring to stay alive.
Yes, he did. However, the consequences of this collective decision has not yet been made manifest in all its costly implications. That was the heart of my previous post.
Who would have thought, for example, that the rush to ethanol, made possible by an almost 50 cent per gallon federal subsidy plus tax credits and other tax advantages that have yet to be costed-out on a per-gallon basis, would have caused riots in Mexico when price of corn used to make it doubled?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.