« Study Compares Policy Approaches Taken by California and France to Promote Electric Vehicles | Main | Van Hool, UTC Power Introduce Belgium’s First Fuel Cell Bus »
President Bush Orders Agencies to Develop Regulations to Reduce Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles
14 May 2007
US President George Bush today issued an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Transportation to work together to begin developing regulations that will reduce gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, using the President’s 20-in-10 plan as a starting point.
The order directs that the development of the regulations be done “in a manner consistent with sound science, analysis of benefits and costs, public safety, and economic growth.” The Administration’s goal is to finish developing the regulation by the end of 2008.
The 20-in-10 proposal calls for a 20% reduction in gasoline usage over the next 10 years, with 15% of the reduction to come from the use of renewable and alternative fuels, and 5% to come from mandated increases in fuel efficiency.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must take action under the Clean Air Act regarding greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. So today, I'm directing the EPA and the Department of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture to take the first steps toward regulations that would cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
Developing these regulations will require coordination across many different areas of expertise. Today, I signed an executive order directing all our agencies represented here today to work together on this proposal. I've also asked them to listen to public input, to carefully consider safety, science, and available technologies, and evaluate the benefits and costs before they put forth the new regulation.
—President Bush
This rule-making will be complex and will require a sustained commitment from the administration to complete it in a timely fashion. While the President’s 20-in-10 plan, which would increase the supply of renewable and alternative fuel and reform the CAFE standards, will serve as a guide, we have not reached any conclusions about what the final regulation will look like. In most instances, by federal law, the Environmental Protection Agency must follow a specific process and take several steps before issuing a final regulation. This is a complex issue and EPA will ensure that any possible rule-making impacting emissions from all new mobile sources through the entire United States will adhere to the federal law.
We will solicit comments on a proposed rule from a broad array of stakeholders and other interested members of the public. Our ultimate decision must reflect a thorough consideration of public comments and an evaluation of how it fits within the scope of the Clean Air Act. Only after EPA has issued a proposal and considered public comments can it finalize a regulation.
—Steve Johnson, Administrator of the EPA
While this order does not directly affect the outcome for California and other states which have adopted the California regulations mandating reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from future new vehicles, the overall argument has now changed from whether or not there should be regulation of CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act to what type of regulation it should be.
Resources:
Transcript of conference call briefing by Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, Secretary of Agriculture Michael Johanns, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell, and Deputy Press Secretary Scott Stanzel
May 14, 2007 in Climate Change, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Stan Peterson | May 15, 2007 at 03:13 PM
Where to begin Stan. We have already lost species through climate change. Tim Flannery estimates we are already "locked in" to losing perhaps 40% of species on the planet without drastic action. That's just one of the myriad impacts of climate change.
If you're not convinced that climate change is human induced and you think the almost total consensus of climate scientists on the issue around the world is unconvincing, you must either be living in an alternative universe or you're funded by Exxon Mobil. "CO2 is life!!!"
Posted by: critta | May 15, 2007 at 04:29 PM
Critta, if you'll notice stan couldn't be funded by Exxon since he is a strong advocate of electric cars, just for non environmental reasons. As for him living in an alternative universe, sadly I think it's just the all to common universe of people who have no scientific background and get their science facts from people on the radio that also know nothing about science, like Rush Limbaugh or some other radio performance artist.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | May 15, 2007 at 07:50 PM
Stan, From some of the things you say, I can tell that you have been influenced by the very effective disinformation efforts of the oil and coal companies. They have spent decades trying to delay and divert us by discrediting the science of global warming and casting doubt on the seriousness of the situation.
I know you think you have heard your information from many reliable sources, but all of the "facts" that you recite come right from the play-book of a handful of propaganda machines who call themselves "think-tanks." But they are not think tanks and and they aren't really thinking... they are entirely funded by oil and coal companies. They are just a handful of guys taking money from Exxon Mobil and Dow and others to seed the media with misleading information designed to cast doubt on the hard science of global warming. Apparently they are doing a good job at this, because even intelligent people like you are still buying it... It is very similar to what the tobacco companies did to us for decades-- trying to cast doubt on the fact that smoking causes cancer. Do you remember how for so long they told us "The scientific link between smoking and cancer is not clear"? Well the link WAS clear, they just didn't want you to know it.
I know you might think that I am preaching some wacky conspiracy theory, but it is absolute fact. If you google around on the name "Competitive Enterprise Institute" you will start to see what I mean. You will be surprised and maybe a bit angry to find that much of what you say originated from their self-serving talking points that they disseminate to the press and to congress to try to confuse us. Now you might say that they have a right to publicize their opinion, but it is really a horrible disservice to the world because they are preventing intelligent people like you from understanding what is really happening to the planet.
Look, none of us like what's happening to the planet. It would be a lot easier to just deny it and go on with our happy little lives. I would love to believe that maybe climate change isn't happening, or isn't caused by man, and maybe it's just a natural cycle... but it's just not so. The more I study the science, the more I think that the situation is even more serious than we can imagine. I am weary just thinking about it. But denying it won't help the situation. We just have to roll up our sleeves and get to work and fix it !
But don't take my word for it. An exhaustive amount of research has been cmpiled for you by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is an absolutely independent and objective assessment of the situation prepared by scientists from 130 countries, reviewed by 2500 scientific experts, with 800 contributing scientist authors, 450 lead authors, and 6 years of work. You can read their executive summary in a few hours at www.ipcc.ch . I don't think there has ever been such a broad-based study of anything ever conducted. The consensus is absolutely clear. Climate change is real, it is caused by man, and it is extremely serious. So if you really want to know what's going on, you owe it to yourself to get to the real facts. Then, I think, you will see why so many of us are are angry about the deceptive forces that have deliberately mis-informed you. When you see what's happening, I think you will be angry also.
Posted by: Jay | May 16, 2007 at 04:38 AM
As long as Stan is for electrification and reduction of fossil fuel usage, I don't care what his reasons for desiring change are. It's completely useless to debate the reasons we need to change when we mostly agree on the end result we need to strive for.
Sway Conservatives with the real crises of peak oil and energy security (getting off the Arab teet). Sway liberals with GW (also real, but the result and our ability to combat it is unknown). Who cares what the reason is? Lets stick to discussing the solutions and how to expedite them.
Posted by: darwin | May 16, 2007 at 06:54 AM
I think the petroleum D.A.R.E. is one way to bring about change.
Just say NO to petrol.
Posted by: BillW | May 16, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Yeah, and the original D.A.R.E. worked/workes SO WELL!
Posted by: darwin | May 16, 2007 at 08:43 AM
Any other ideas on how to "educate" the youngsters?
Posted by: BillW | May 17, 2007 at 02:26 PM
And to think they're considering him for the Nobel Peace Prize! Unbelievable!
Posted by: sulleny | May 17, 2007 at 03:37 PM
The govenrment should focus on perfecting the electric vehicle! We have the technology. "We the people" of the USA should be outraged with our government for allowing big oil to have their way. If you are an electric vehicle junky, you know that people are making electric vehicles in their garages. You know of the EV1 program. If people are making functional plugin electric motorcyles/cars in their garages just imagine what vehicle manufacturers can do.
What we really need, is a group of wealthy individuals to create a new motor company. This motor company must be formed by a group whose primary focus is not to give in to "Big oil", and government incentives to "play ball". Secondly this new company should produce two or three reliable, economical & most importantly affordable plug-in long range electric vehicles. Like the model T Ford, it should be marketed to the average middle income family. Not only would these vehicles be great for our country, but the owners of this company would MAKE HISTORY!!!! Think about it.
Posted by: Jack | May 20, 2007 at 05:05 PM
Currently we are moving to new dedicated server where we are going to provide wide, interactive platform for energy, and climate issues enthusiasts and professionals. We are going to start as of 01.Junne 2007. You are all wellcome to live your comments, write articles, or simply pass by.
Editors: http://www.ethanol-news.de
Posted by: Marian | May 21, 2007 at 08:16 PM
For daily updated news on biofuels, ethanol and climate change issues, please visit:
http://www.ethanol-news.de
Posted by: http://www.ethanol-news.de | May 31, 2007 at 03:57 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d8354f826d69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Bush Orders Agencies to Develop Regulations to Reduce Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles:

Twitter headlines
Andichrose,
You and i have agree on many a thing. But a "planetary emergency" ? You need to stop taking your daily dose of Chicken Littlism.
In a century and half the world temperature, in so far as we are able to measure it today or infer what it was more than a few decades ago successfully, has increased by half a degree Celsius. If this keeps up for say another 1000- to 10,000 years we might have a little problem. It would be awkward to have the world as warm as at the time of the Trojan War. Would the world be uninhabitable ? Only if the Bronze Age civilizations were impossible. And they weren't!
As to the increase in CO2, I actually welcome that. It improves plant growth by 15% or so and that is why commercial growers routinely inject CO2 into the atmosphere of their Green houses.
Too bad it won't continue for longer than a few decades more before receding. The coming electrification of the ground transport will remove thew putative source of CO2 additions.
Oh and the rising seas? Did you ever notice that although they tell you how much the seas MIGHT rise if all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted; they NEVER tell you how long it would take to melt. Why??? its because the estimate is on the order of 10**4 to 10**6 years is the likely response to the inertia of All of that ice.
So once again what "planetary emergency" were you referring to? The rising Solar flux. i suppose that if that rise continued we could all fry ,as one day we will when the Sun goes Red Giant, bu that is 10**9 years in the future. Our stellar astrophysicists can now read the solar convection currents of the rivers of gas beneath the Solar surface. They understand it fairly well for such short research; and can make predictions based on the flows.
The Sun having gotten slightly hotter since the mid 1970's, as it periodically does, is now getting cooler for the past few years within the partial half of one percent or so that it oscillates about its almost constant but not quite steady output.