Green Car Congress: EPA Officials Tell Congress That Agencys Own Efforts to Regulate Motor Vehicle CO2 Were Halted in December 2007

« ISE Corp To Market Biodiesel to its Heavy-Duty Hybrid Customers | Main | Valero CEO Says Corn Ethanol Will Cause More Misery Than Global Warming »

EPA Officials Tell Congress That Agency’s Own Efforts to Regulate Motor Vehicle CO2 Were Halted in December 2007

12 March 2008

A proposal to regulate motor vehicle greenhouse gases developed by EPA would have resulted in a fleet fuel economy much closer to that resulting from implementing the California regulations than the one currently mandated by EISA 2007. Click to enlarge.

Senior EPA officials have told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that, after the agency concluded in December that CO₂ emissions were a danger to the United States and proposed significant cuts in motor vehicle emissions, the agency’s regulatory efforts on this were halted.

According to a letter sent by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, EPA officials said that the agency’s analysis showed that motor vehicles could achieve CO₂ emission reductions equal to a fleet fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by 2018. This nationwide standard is not as stringent as the California proposal, which called for achieving the equivalent of 35 mpg by 2017 and more than 40 mpg by 2020, but it is “significantly more stringent” than the 35 mpg by 2020 standard set by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).

The Committee has been examining the EPA’s denial of the waiver required to enable California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. During this investigation, the new information surfaced on the stalling of EPA’s own efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles on a national level.

The 10-page letter from Congressman Waxman details some of the information provided by the senior EPA officials, and notifies Administrator Johnson of the Committee’s intent to investigate this new matter more thoroughly. The letter requests, as a start:

The technical support document prepared by the Office of Atmospheric Programs;
The proposed endangerment finding that was transmitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget in December 2007; and
The proposed vehicle greenhouse gas rule that was transmitted to NHTSA in December 2007.

Multiple senior EPA officials have told the Committee on the record that after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, you assembled a team of 60 to 70 EPA officials to determine whether carbon dioxide emissions endanger health and welfare and, if so, to develop regulations reducing CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. According to these officials, you agreed with your staff’s proposal that CO₂ emissions from motor vehicles should be reduced and in December forwarded an endangerment finding to the White House and a proposed motor vehicle regulation to the Department of Transportation. The proposed regulation would have produced significantly more CO₂ reductions than the revised fuel economy standards enacted last year.

The senior EPA officials who spoke with the Committee did not know what transpired inside the White House or the Department of Transportation or what directions the White House may have given you. They do know, however, that since you sent the endangerment finding to the White House, “the work on the vehicle efforts has stopped.” They reported to the Committee that the career officials assigned to the issue have ceased their efforts and have been “awaiting direction” since December.

These accounts raise serious questions. It appears that EPA’s efforts to regulate CO₂ emissions have been effectively halted, which would appear to be a violation of the Supreme Court’s directive and an abdication of your responsibility to protect health and the environment from dangerous emissions of CO₂.

—Letter from Congressman Waxman

In response to the Supreme Court decision, in May 2007 President Bush signed an executive order directing EPA and other federal agencies to develop regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.

In response to the executive order, EPA assembled a team “on the order of 60 or 70” to work on the endangerment finding and the regulation of CO₂, according to Karl Simon, the Director of the Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division in EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

Fifty-three officials from the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) alone worked on the effort from May through December 2007, according to Margo Oge, Director OTAQ. These staff resources were supplemented by outside contractor resources with a $5.3 million budget in FY 2007.

The Office of Atmospheric Programs prepared multiple drafts of a technical support document that generated “about 500 comments” from internal EPA review, external Federal expert review and other interagency comments. Agencies that reviewed this document included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The career staff concluded that CO₂ emissions endanger both human health and welfare, according to the information provided to the committee.

According to EPA staff, the resulting proposal to regulate CO₂ emissions from motor vehicles was about 300 pages long, with extensive cost/benefit analysis. The proposal was developed in conjunction with NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), the Federal administration in charge of CAFE.

According to your staff, you [Johnson] supported their recommendations on two key points: (1) you agreed that CO₂ emissions endanger welfare and (2) you backed their proposal to reduce CO₂ emissions from motor vehicles. The main staff recommendation you rejected was the staff finding that CO₂ emissions also endangered human health. Five separate EPA officials told the Committee that you personally made the decision to exclude public health from the endangerment finding.

...The career EPA staff who the Committee interviewed did not know what communications you or other political appointees in the agency may have had with White House officials. But they did tell the Committee that after the White House received the endangerment finding and the Department of Transportation received the proposed motor vehicle regulation, work on the finding and regulation was stopped.

...According to EPA staff they have been informed that work has been discontinued so that EPA’s activities can be reassessed in light of enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

...As a legal matter, the passage of provisions in the Energy Independence and Security Act requiring the Department of Transportation to strengthen federal CAFE standards does not affect EPA’s legal obligation to regulate CO₂ emissions. The Act included language to ensure that a change in CAFE requirements did not affect the Clean Air Act’s provisions. Moreover, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA: “The fact that DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA’s environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public health and welfare.

—Letter from Congressman Waxman

March 12, 2008 in Climate Change, Emissions, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/27039160

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EPA Officials Tell Congress That Agency’s Own Efforts to Regulate Motor Vehicle CO2 Were Halted in December 2007:

Comments

Thank God!

Posted by: Herm | Mar 12, 2008 1:38:08 PM

Your God commands you to care for the world he has given you.

Sounds like you worship the Devil.

Posted by: Lucas | Mar 12, 2008 2:38:17 PM

Now why is this a surprise. Another reason to think GWB Jr will go down as one of the most incompetent presidents ever. Nothing like ideological based practices taking over.

Posted by: aym | Mar 12, 2008 3:32:42 PM

incompetent??? Hell no. He's accomplished everything he was sElected to do.

Posted by: DS | Mar 12, 2008 4:07:28 PM

So, after all that speech that regulating CO2 should be a national matter, after spending millions of dollars to create a complete set of new regulations with cost-benefit analysis included... nothing happens. And for all we know it was better than what California came up with. But it was thrown under a bus.

Even if you do happen to agree with this decision, the manner that it was decided goes against the rule of law. And that is far more dear to me than any disagreements over global warming science or goverment policy.

At least Bush can only serve two terms.

Posted by: Cervus | Mar 12, 2008 4:21:07 PM

You're talking semantics. Both he and those who elected him are incompetent.

Posted by: GdB | Mar 12, 2008 4:29:54 PM

The laws governing allowable vehicle emissions and fuel mileage in this country, along with the gas-hog vehicle models that continue to be marketed and sold to this very moment, are bathed in the blood of American soldiers and continue to be marinated in it as well. We in this country have set a horrible example of gluttony that China, India and other industrial-explosion nations now feel is their entitlement, and so follow suit. Our current and past presidents and congresses have all succombed to temptation, lobbyists and/or campaign favors and not fought to protect our people or our planet. Our citizens, for the large part, refuse now to make ethical choices or sacrifice because they have been lulled into thinking this bad behavior and selfishness could go on indefinitely without consequences to themselves, their descendents or our planet. They are ALL WRONG. Action is needed NOW. Each day, the seconds tick away toward irreversible lines regarding world peace and planet rescue.

Posted by: N.A.P. | Mar 12, 2008 4:54:28 PM

Not a bad idea.

Posted by: Al Fin | Mar 12, 2008 5:19:28 PM

I ran accross an interesting idea the other day:

Raise the gas tax but lower income tax proportionately. Most people will say "that's a stupid and round about way to do things" but there is some logic:
-the income tax would be lowered the most on low income families to reduce initial economic shock
-the income tax would be reduced to lesser degrees higher up the tax bracket
-the effect will essentially be very high pump prices on the order of $5,$6, or even $7 a gallon. Few people (that I have talked to) really know what portion of their income they spend on gasoline. Instead they usually say "a lot" or "too much." The sticker shock of routinely spending $100-140 will force them to purchase a more efficient vehicle or seek alternative transportation.

Posted by: GreenPlease | Mar 12, 2008 7:13:41 PM

Something I forgot to add is that a portion of that tax could be used to build batteries for PHEV's. In theory:

-U.S. Gasoline consumption: 15mbpd, 5.47Gb/y, or 230 billion gallons per year
-Average price for 2007 $3.00 (optimistic), say 100% gas tax...
-$690billion in tax revenues. Let's say half of that is diverted to make up from reduced income tax receipts. That leaves us with $345billion.
-At $0.50/W, we could build 690,000,000,000W, or 690,000,000kW of batteries. If we were to deploy 10kW/h battery packs 69,000,000/year could be built.
-At some point, private businesses could purchase these from the government and lease them to consumers (oil companies, utilities, coal, nuke, and the rest of coporate America). I figure if the big boys are allowed to make a profit and get first dibs they will be more likely to play along.

Posted by: GreenPlease | Mar 12, 2008 7:28:19 PM

N.A.P

It couldn't be said with better words

Thanks

Posted by: Treehugger | Mar 12, 2008 7:55:18 PM

As I see your bwing cluwlwaa ukk hwlp hwew.

1 Bush jad nothing to do with any of this. It is just a side effect of how politics works that someone else beat the epa to the finish line and forced in something that passed . This both consumed all the political energy for such am amdevor it ALSO made it immpossible in the time left to all political apoinyees. This effectively means that its the next administrations job and always was.

2 Bush didnt realy care between an end date of 2017 and 2020 as long as it started and wasnt impeachment peoceedings;/

3 the political doece behind the current act was wise spread and on all sides and involved alot of deals many not involving bush or even republicans at all.. just politicers and buricritters doing what they do best.

Might as well blame bush for talk radio spam and plague...

Posted by: wintermane | Mar 12, 2008 8:11:04 PM

Greenplease:

You would need to tune this approach to take into account that the lowest income earners don't pay any income tax; they do pay a lot in 'payroll' taxes (SSA, etc). So they would feel the pain but not see any gain, unless you gave them a tax credit, preferably one that they get every pay period as a sort of 'reverse withholding'.

Otherwise, I'm with you.

Posted by: Nick | Mar 12, 2008 9:50:41 PM

You're forgetting your Meds again wintermane.

Posted by: DS | Mar 12, 2008 9:50:42 PM

Igvin in biem st upi hpoomh yp jsdd;r ,r snpiy ,u ,rfdzz/ pmy'y nr s fovljrsf/

Posted by: wintermane | Mar 12, 2008 10:09:16 PM

So EPA officials finally told Congress on the Bush Bunch.
(after over a year of waffelling).

Now to find a way back to reality and stop wrecking the planet while a few selfish idiots get rich.

Will the wake up call do any good? ... Hard to say. So far the republicans still manage near 50% support for the next incompetent Bush-alike, and Ralph Nader sits at a 5% no-show.

Posted by: John Taylor | Mar 12, 2008 11:11:02 PM

blame bush, the epa , the system , anyone but ourselves and the consumerist live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself attitude.
The Adonis of wealth and conspicious consumption, as long as you are with the "in crowd" look the other way and the beautiful people (who never ever get their hands dirty).
Obviosly never been a part of family.
But that's the game just dont let reality , or other peoples reality contaminate the good times we could all be having if those lazy good for nothing subhumans would only work harder for less.
Then at least I'll be right and the rest well lets call it Karma!
Good one western white gods.

Posted by: Arnold | Mar 13, 2008 12:24:04 AM

WINTERMANE: ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THAT CATARACT OPERATION? YOU NEED A KEYBOARD THAT HAS "BUMPS" ON THE "F" AND "J" KEYS SO YOU CAN TELL WHERE YOUR HANDS ARE.

Posted by: Neil | Mar 13, 2008 6:17:44 AM

Arnold, were you high when you posted that?

Posted by: Bob Bastard | Mar 13, 2008 6:35:37 AM

Bob
I don't know what you're problem is but I, for one, understood every word of Arnold's post.

Posted by: ai_vin | Mar 13, 2008 8:01:57 AM

Here is the point.

The US has an environmental protection agency to advise political leadership. The politico's instead of taking that advice, hid it until a deal for less stringent limits could be thrashed out.

If we let the politico's get away with this (in this case the Bush White House, but all politics is dirty to some degree, sorry obamaites, but its true), then we break the process of checks and balances which is intended to control our politicians, and, in this case, we screw up our world, just so that GM can carry on building trucks the size of houses!

Posted by: Kevin | Mar 13, 2008 9:22:24 AM

I have home keys... I just am the genghis khan of typing and am yaa still blind as a bat.

Anyway no the admin didnt HIDE anything as its been said already the report was sent everywhere and got comment back from everywhere. As far as bush.. give it a rest.. hes not a genius and 2017 vs 2020 likely sounded like a completely ok compromise to get SOMETHING signed this decade. Dont forget folks the 2017 deal barely made it in time and anything more would have resulted in failure to get started till likely 2011 and thuis go into effect 2015 and thus would have been WORSE.

Posted by: wintermane | Mar 13, 2008 10:23:48 AM

Christine Todd Whitman, the first EPA leader for GW quit in the first few years because she realized that that group had no intention of protecting the environment. Whitman was not a left winger, the was a conservative that worked in favor of business, but was too "liberal" to stay at EPA.

Posted by: sjc | Mar 13, 2008 10:48:19 AM

ai_vin, I think I understood the first sentence. Maybe you could parse the rest of it out for me. From my point of view, it reads like an incoherent THC induced ramble; more legible, but about as easily understood as one of Wintermane's posts.

Posted by: Bob Bastard | Mar 13, 2008 12:47:31 PM

An incoherent comment about a system that (apparently) works for a few, reflective of the status quo, who scream loudly when that economic lifestyle is under threat.
expressing of frustration of the confliction of interest which frame humanity and nature in this age.
It's quite obvious that some difficult times are ahead for large swathes of humanity At home and abroard, while so many politicians and vested interests manouvere strategic self interests.
Social economic models that work to the degree they do are likely to severly let down the (majority?) of participants as energy becomes restricted to those with apparently secure futures.
Much needs to be done here as this is the bigger picture that is barely described.
While of course many concerned persons offer helpfull advice and analysis.
About as likely to get legs as ?
The economic status quo which places the burden on the least able seems to be the best biggest hammer that the legislators can come up with for now. As could rationally be expected.
This article descrbes how this is occouring.

Just high on life and free speech.

Posted by: Arnold | Mar 13, 2008 2:55:47 PM

Anyway...back to reality from the philosophical (which I don't disagree with, but my experience shows is slow to motivate anyone to action). Why should we have to wait until 2017 or 2020 to see vehicle mileage standards enacted and met, which were in reach 40 years ago! C'mon people, don't let them procrastinate just so a few more "good 'ole boys" can get that much richer, time is ticking. Slimeballs are going Aruba on somebody else's dime, or climbing the next rung on a sick political system's ladder for turning a blind eye to both: the death and suffering of our, and our allies brave soldiers over oil AND the choking of our planet! These "people" have allowed the legality of: 17ft+ long SUV's, Pick-ups with 6 side doors which you need a ladder to enter and a 500hp hemi engine to be standard equipment on several models. Hey, I grew up in the late 60's and early 70's and NOBODY loved muscle cars more than me but...we can no longer afford this type of overindulgence. Think about how many of our, and the rest of the world's problems could be solved or helped if we simply reduced gasoline consumption (and oil dependence)in this country by just 30%. This has the most immediate promise to stop war, reduce famine & disease and stabilize global warming. Think of it, gas prices are so high that many hard-working people now have make choices between fuel or other of life's necessities. This is all quite ridiculous, dispicable and fixable. If you buy and use a vehicle that excessively guzzles gas just to satisfy your machismo insecurities or feeling of social status, you must look in the mirror and KNOW you are one of those making the biggest contribution to these problems. Sure, you can write back your rebuttal, be we will all always know the truth.

Posted by: N.A.P. | Mar 13, 2008 6:04:02 PM

Heavens, all this talk about C02 Regulations makes me want to drive alot. With the EPA getting so big, and wrecking fuel economy in the name of "emissions," I think I can see fairly clearly its all about power and greed, not our health.

And besides. Like WE are the ones to look to trim the C02 or particulates we spew. Lets not focus on China and India now. Lets cut US emissions by 10% and fund China with all our outsourcing and let them spew that 10% we saved, plus 35% more.

And, dear EPA, let the little guy (the ones not making much money) pay dearly for their new/used car that doesnt emit much of anything at all, but boy, does it consume their dollars swiftly. As does China. But, my, my are we gonna live longer because of all your thoughtful, insightful efforts. *rolls eyes*

Nate

Posted by: Nate H. | Mar 13, 2008 8:30:58 PM

The expression of opinions are based on the education of the one speaking or writing them. Opinions are a "dime a dozen" and are often expressed sincerely, but lack personal research.
Many who do not take time to find out the facts can be easily misled or swayed by a simple stranger who may have an agenda unknown to the individual reader.
One must be wise and aware of his surroundings and be sure to research all the info before making a decision or expressing an "opinion".
Smog forming emissions consist of *Carbon Monoxide (CO) *Hydrocarbons (HC) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM). Please look up these pollutants and research them.
If your concern is Carbon Dioxide, please read in-between the lines on the 10 page letter and see that the only way to reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is to burn less fuel or gasoline. CO2 is another subject one should research extensively as to what this really is.
Be sure to open up your mind - like a parachute - it only works when it is open - and see for yourself that the main area of pollutants listed above is of concern to the healthiness of our environment and our well being not CO2.
The amount of CO2 produced by 1 human being is more then the automobile you drive each day. (check it out)

We can measure, monitor and reduce CO, HC, Nox, and PM by 75% in any combustion vehicle starting today.
When one can reduce emissions by 75%, it means your engine is more fuel efficient. Being more fuel efficient means more MPG's and thus reduces CO2.

If you want to be part of the solution, education is a must. If you want to rely on mis-information or be led around like a bull with a ring in its nose - that is called choice.

If you want to save money on fuel/gasoline cost - increase MPG - reduce smog forming emissions and set the trend for a clean environment, please ask me and I will inform you with "The Truth". Bring your parachute, OK? drgo@charter.net Danny

Posted by: Daniel B | Mar 14, 2008 10:44:02 AM

If, in fact, the White House stopped the EPA the move is a crime against the Nation,the humanity. I can't believe that Mr. Bush and his circle of officials new about this stop order. If it originated from them we really had a sorryfull, tragic series of undertakings in this eight years;the cosequencies are yet to come.

Mr. Waxman and the Congress, should find out who were reponsible for this move, what really motivated them!, than criminally prosecute them irrespective of their status. This is effecting us more seriously than Nixon's Watergate, far more damaging than the 9/11 terrorist acts, greater reason for public disillusionment than the recent Spitzer affair.

What other covert underhanded craftiness shall the people of America going to be confronted with yet?!

Attila

Posted by: attila | Mar 14, 2008 11:09:02 AM

I wonder if it is possible to petition the Supreme Court to have Bush jailed for contempt of court? Could failure to enforce environmental laws be considered obstruction of justice?

Posted by: tom deplume | Mar 14, 2008 12:43:54 PM

I wonder if it is possible to petition the Supreme Court to have Bush jailed for contempt of court? Could failure to enforce environmental laws be considered obstruction of justice?

Who sElected Bush in the first place?

Posted by: DS | Mar 14, 2008 12:55:07 PM

Attila & Tom,
The subject at hand is CO2. CO2 is not what is of concern to the health and wellness of our lives. Some may seen to beleive or are politically led to make CO2 the main subject for debate.
The leading pollutants that effect our lives are, Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hydrocarbons (HC) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM)
The above 4 pollutants can be measured, monitored and identified. They can be reduced too!
See my comments written earlier today

Posted by: Daniel B | Mar 14, 2008 12:59:41 PM

Why not propose a limit on plant fertilizer too?
I'm sure some environmentalist purists will say feeding plants is anti-biological, and anti-Natural, somehow.

If you asked what was Mr. Bush's greatest achievements, it was his energy policies.
1) He brought sanity to the reformed laws he got passed, regarding construction of Energy sources.
2) He has re-created, and expanded the international consortium to build the last Fusion experimental test reactor, ITER, that Clinton's incompetence ruined.
3) He cajoled the nuclear plant builders to invest billions of their own money designing "standardized plants" that are up to 4 magnitudes safer than the still safe plants operating today, in the West.
4) He is fighting a war to keep the oil fields from passing into the hands of even worse tyrants.

Only the Eco-crazies forced this, since they would not allow his fifth energy policy. That is the short term policy of more domestic interim drilling, until electric Substitutes for petroleum become fully developed, and ubiquitous in the marketplace. These are coming now, this decade.

For those gentlemen here who want the ICE retired for whatever reason, it is his policies that that are bringing this about.

Have you forgotten that it was his governmental-industry consortium, his US ABC that created the Li-Ion battery out of a lab curiosity? It certainly wasn't the prior, stupid PNGV that proposed million dollar new cars, using Fuel cells and billion dollar B-2 construction materials, that are not even recyclable and thus non-sustainable.

If you truly worry about atmospheric CO2, the only real way to make massive reductions is twofold:
1) to electrify the auto fleets;
2) to power those vehicles, then build non fossil electric generators. He has enabled a last generation of fission nuclear electric generators, and then push to complete design of Fusion electric generators.

If some fossil coal generation must be built he has subsidized development of IGCC "clean coal" plants.
His policies certainly lead to that reality. Mr. Bush may be criticized on many grounds, but Energy policy is not among them. If Mr. Clinton had remained committed to the ITER fusion reactor, and had the intestinal fortitude to fight for his ITER, it would be constructed and in operation today. And we would be designing and building the first commercial Fusion electric power station today. Instead we are facing another decade and half delay, and the Energy problem would be within easy view of accomplishment.

Or you can dream of tilting at Windmills, as so many critics here do.

Posted by: Stan Peterson | Mar 14, 2008 1:52:25 PM

Why not propose a limit on plant fertilizer too?
I'm sure some environmentalist purists will say feeding plants is anti-biological, and anti-Natural, somehow.

For those gentlemen here who want the ICE retired for whatever reason, it is his policies that that are bringing this about.

Or you can dream of tilting at Windmills, as so many critics here do.

Posted by: Stan Peterson | Mar 14, 2008 1:55:36 PM

Sorry for the double post. My PC hiccuped.

Posted by: Stan Peterson | Mar 14, 2008 1:57:38 PM

Many things are unclear. There seems to be no physical order to stop. The team delivered their reports and are waiting.

Apparently the recommendations went to the White House; an example of the evergrowing (and foolish) tendency to send everything to the White House. (A trend not new with Bush; the big change began with Kennedy.)

This matter is clearly a decision to be made at the operational level. Except in Defense their seems to be no pretense that Cabinet Secretaries decide anything anymore.

OTOH I have no doubt the administration wishes to ignore the matter and is stalling. Just why can be explained by the mind readers.

As a practical matter CO2 levels will not be changed by anything Bush does in the next eleven months.

No matter who is elected the regulations are going be issued. They will be tough. Hillary and Obama certainly would do it.

And McCain has no interest in such matters. His concerna are foreign affairs and earmarks and such. He won't give a hoot what is said in rules issued by the EPA. So in this matter McCain will go with what the Courts and Congress say. A Congress that is certain to have more Democrats than now.

Take nothing Waxman says at face value. I consider him the most partisan member of Congress. And that covers a lot of bums. But he will use truth when it suits him.

Posted by: K | Mar 14, 2008 2:55:54 PM

The solution is simple dear friends:

Elect Better Actors!

Posted by: coolbreeze | Mar 14, 2008 11:25:00 PM

Damn! Even when I control the media, data and real time distribution of same - I can't make people behave the way I, ME MY, want them to!! Is this the Divine's way of telling me I'm a solipsist, self-righteous totalitarian?? YES. And Acceptance is the one thing I will not tolerate!

Posted by: Juke | Mar 14, 2008 11:44:09 PM

The next 11 months may not make a difference, but the last 7 years probably will. If you have 8 years of ignorance and willful neglect it can and does take its toll. This situation is changing year by year and a decade can make all the difference in the world.

GWB has fronted for the oil companies to get them the highest prices and stall any alternatives, so that they can get all they can while they can. It is a shameful and immoral act done by a coward. We are all paying and will continue to pay the price for this deception for the rest of our lives. Now it is time to make up for lost time and turn this thing back around to something workable.

Posted by: sjc | Mar 15, 2008 8:19:12 AM

Standardized plants were being designed way before Bush Jr came alone. AP600 was completely license in 1999, with upgraded plans for the AP1000 already being worked out. The ABWR, was already built in Japan by 1996. So unless bush did it as governor that makes no sense.

As for the billions spent by private industry, try the billions of public funds. The DOE nuclear incentive programs in the 2009 budget was set to over 540 million included help for licensing to money for design work and fuel cycles.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/proposed-depart.html

And yes there are limits to fertilization. It's against large pig manure ponds and other agricultural run off into the gulf or into our lakes creating huge hypoxic dead zones and the growth of some dangerous diatoms. It's well known policy and risk from fertilizer. Here's a recent article from this very site.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/epa-science-adv.html

Li-ion battery? Sony made the first commercial one in 1991. And frankly fail to see any significant connection between batteries and bush.

Also, the only one creating a political partisen environment is you Stan. Who the heck even mentioned any other administration? Who keeps using derogatory adjectives to those groups whose views are contrary. Now get off that soapbox.

Posted by: aym | Mar 15, 2008 11:32:58 AM

Gosh ayn,

just keep your head in the sand and deny the whole charade that you and your brethren claim as a "real world." Your actors playing Bush, Cheney, Obama etc. are unbelievable, your scenarios clumsily inhuman, and your attempted resolutions - so old-school as to be utterly laughable. Your methods are old, ineffective and (current parlance) "over." Take off the mask clown - we all see beneath your facade.

Posted by: coolbreeze | Mar 15, 2008 9:23:34 PM

Hi Daniel B...The human body per day produces carbon dioxide, the average car produces while traveling 2 miles. If fuels burned to deliver fuel to gas stations are also included, the average car can't go 1.2 miles before reaching the human's carbon dioxide daily limit. Of course, any car racers, lead footers or gas hogs couldn't travel a half mile without reaching the body's daily limit. Unfortunately, lots of people are car racers & lead footers.

Also, as the EPA dictates air emission control, as carbon monoxide & hydrocarbons are catalytically burned to produce less of these 2 pollutants, carbon dioxide levels are raised in quantity.

Posted by: litesong | Mar 15, 2008 11:41:15 PM

??? Were those comments meant for me coolbreeze? Can't tell since in this post I put forth no solutions and you have not spelled correctly to whom your comment was intended for.

Posted by: aym | Mar 16, 2008 7:35:17 AM

@litesong,

If you include the CO2 released upon bringing gasoline to the pump, you should include the CO2 released to grow the food, package it and bring it to the shop. Do you have any data on that?

Posted by: Anne | Mar 17, 2008 6:17:52 AM

Poor people don't buy new cars, they buy used cars. Any tax-based solution that punishes poor people the most, and can be weathered by new car buyers will fail. Direct regulation of fuel economy and emissions is the only viable solution.

Posted by: Nixon | Mar 31, 2008 6:18:49 PM