Twitter headlines« Volvo Aero to Partner with Pratt & Whitney on Geared Turbofan Engine | Main | Chrysler Targeting EVS in 3-5 Years »
US EPA Moots Two Methods for Regulating GHG from Light-Duty Vehicles
14 July 2008
As part of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last Friday afternoon, the agency mooted two alternative attributes-based approaches for setting light-duty vehicle GHG standards.
Based on EPA modeling, such light-duty vehicle GHG regulations could result in average CO2 emissions of approximately 232 g/mile (144 g/km) by 2020, reflecting fuel economy of approximately 38.3 mpg gasoline (6.14 L/100km). The current fuel economy target in the new CAFE legislation is 35 mpg by 2020.
(The California Air Resources Board earlier this year projected that GHG controls in Pavley Phase 2 rules would result in a new California fleet mpg of 43.9 mpg by 2020; federal CAFE applied to the California fleet would take it to 35.7 mpg by 2020. Earlier post.)
The EPA is proposing neither of the methods as policy, but is seeking comments on approach, as well as on a long list of other aspects related to such potential regulation. The entire ANPR is a solicitation for comments on the benefits, proposed approaches, and ramifications of regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
The EPA produced the document in response to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court found that the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
There are thus two aspects the ANPR. First is the analysis of endangerment; second is the regulation that would result if endangerment is determined.
In his preface to the document, and again in the press conference held at its release, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asserted that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited for the tasks of regulating global greenhouse gases. The 588-page ANPR document included some 90 pages of comments from other federal agencies and offices, all noting the unsuitability of the CAA for GHG regulation. (The Department of Transportation—the agency currently in charge of fuel economy regulations (CAFE)—was especially critical of EPA’s assumptions and modeling efforts.)
...it has become clear that if EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs—such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitals—could also be triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land.
This ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act. This document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice today because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to our legal obligations in a timely manner.
I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases. Based on the analysis to date, pursuing this course of action would inevitably result in a very complicated, time-consuming and, likely, convoluted set of regulations.
—Stephen Johnson, Preface to the ANPR
Despite the amount of work EPA staff has already put into the task, the ANPR as released is more of a work-in-progress document.
In view of the interrelationship of CAA authorities and the many pending CAA actions concerning GHGs before the Agency, EPA decided to issue this ANPR to elicit information that will assist us in developing and evaluating potential action under the CAA. In this ANPR, we review the bases for a potential endangerment finding in the context of the pending petition concerning new motor vehicles, explore interconnections between CAA provisions that could lead to broader regulation of GHG emissions, and examine the full range of potential CAA regulation of GHGs, including a discussion of the issues raised by regulation of GHG emissions of mobile and stationary sources under the Act. The ANPR will help us shape an overall approach for potentially addressing GHG emissions under the CAA as part of a broader set of actions to address GHG.
—ANPR, p. 90
Regulating LDV GHG Emissions
The transportation sector in the US (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for approximately 28% of all GHG emissions in 2006, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels. Virtually all of the energy consumed in this end-use comes from petroleum products, with more than 60% of the CO2 emissions resulting from gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use.
CO2 is the dominant GHG emitted from motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines (referred to as section 202 sources in the CAA and ANPR), and the dominant GHG emitted in the US and globally. CO2 emissions from section 202 sources in the US grew by 32% between 1990 and 2006, largely due to increased CO2 emissions from light-duty trucks (61% since 1990) and medium/heavy-duty trucks (76%).
Both of the approaches EPA developed for LDV GHG emissions regulations are attribute-based approaches, using vehicle footprint (correlating roughly to vehicle size) as the attribute. Under either approach, a CO2-footprint continuous function curve is defined that establishes different CO2 emission targets for each unique vehicle footprint.
In general, the larger the vehicle footprint, the higher (less stringent) the corresponding vehicle CO2 emission target will be. Each manufacturer would have a different overall fleet average CO2 emissions standard depending on the distribution of footprint values for the vehicles it sells.
One approach was based on a fixed 4% per year reduction in CO2 emissions. The other approach identified CO2 standards which an engineering optimization model projects as resulting in maximum net benefits for society. That approach uses the DOT’s Volpe Model, which the DOT is using in rulemaking establishing CAFE standards.
In the most recent analysis presented in the ANPR, EPA updated earlier work by including plug-in hybrids as a viable technology beginning in 2012; considering the multi-year planning cycles available to manufacturers; considering CO2 trading between car and truck fleets within the same manufacturer; assuming that all major manufacturers would comply with the standards; and correcting the CO2 reduction effectiveness for diesel technology.
The agency has yet to considered the widespread use of light-weight materials; further improvements in the CO2 reduction effectiveness of existing technologies; potential for cost reductions beyond an earlier analysis in 2007; and the potential for new technologies. It also did not addressed the potential changes in vehicle market shifts that may occur in the future in response to new standards, new consumer preferences, or the potential for higher fuel prices.
Recent trends in the US auto industry indicate there may be a major shift occurring in consumer demand away from light-duty trucks and SUVs and towards smaller passenger cars. Such potential trends are not captured in our analysis and they could have a first-order impact on the results.
—ANPR, p. 258
Based on its updated analysis using both approaches, the EPA concluded that:
Technology is readily available to achieve significant reductions in light-duty vehicle GHG emissions between now and 2020 (and beyond);
The benefits of these new standards far outweigh their costs;
Owners of vehicles complying with the new standard will recoup their increased vehicle costs within 6-9 years, and;
New standards would result in substantial reductions in GHGs.
The EPA also proposed a possible supplemental “backstop” carbon dioxide emissions standard for each year (also referred to as an “anti-backsliding” provision) as a complement under the CAA to an attribute-based standard. This would be an additional obligation for manufacturers that would limit the maximum fleet average carbon dioxide emissions, independent of attributes.
The fixed percent per year approach is broadly consistent with EPA’s traditional means of setting standards for mobile sources, which identifies levels of emissions reductions that are technologically feasible at reasonable cost with marginal emissions reduction benefits which may far outweigh marginal program costs, without adverse impacts on safety and with positive impacts on energy utilization, and which address a societal need for reductions. Comparing and contrasting these approaches with the model-optimized approach is one way to evaluate options for appropriate standards under section 202(a).
—ANPR, p. 251
The EPA published a more detailed description of the two models in a supporting document, Evaluating Potential Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Programs for Light Vehicles.
Resources
July 14, 2008 in Climate Change, Emissions, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Reality Czech | July 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
After this saga, the defiance of the Supreme Court, the ignoring of career scientists and the available science, and our current disastrous situation with an economy crushed by shocking petroleum prices, there is only one conclusion: The Bush administration is run by cynical, mendacious and venal people who would rather that millions of Americans suffer than their clients in Detroit, Houston, Dubai and Riyadh lose some marginal revenue.
Shameful and cowardly. We all are ready to be led to a new, cleaner, more prosperous future, but Bush still wants us to pay his Saudi masters many more billions before he leaves.
Posted by: Dollared | July 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Can't we just pass a law that all presidential libraries are taxpayer funded? I think that would be cheaper in the long run than having a President bowing to his carbon emitting masters. I can't wait until the end of the Cheney presidency.
"The fight goes on, the cause endures and the dream shall never die".
Posted by: Uncle Leo | July 14, 2008 at 12:42 PM
@Dollared
It always amazes me that Americans are NOW so critical of Bush. What took you people so long? To 95% of the worlds population he was obviously a bad idea from the start, and we said so at the time. His faults were clearly visible and his lies paper thin.
Bush is only part of the problem. The real problem is the voters, they put him into power in the first place (and then kept him there).
But to be fair even you yanks were also laughing at him during that first year. You knew he was a national joke, 'but at least' I kept hearing my american friends say 'he's harmless.'
Posted by: ai_vin | July 14, 2008 at 02:03 PM
I'm not looking forward to the prospect of President Obama, but if that disaster does come to pass at least the epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome that's been sweeping the planet will die out. I'm really tired of hearing how Bush is simultaneously both a flaming moron and an evil mastermind manipulating the world to do his bidding.
Posted by: Matthew | July 14, 2008 at 03:45 PM
It's not as if it's the first time either. Reagan dismantled the welfare state to the point that Cuba does a better job of providing health care for the poor than the US does.
Such a rich, powerful country adding so little value.
Posted by: critta | July 14, 2008 at 03:46 PM
And yet, hundreds of Cubans die each year trying to get here, those poor deluded fools.
Posted by: Matthew | July 14, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Pssst... Did anyone explain to you that everything you are doing is merely a computer game? A not very realistic one? You are a pawn in a galactic entertainment. But don't listen to me. Just keep investing yourself in this "virtual reality." That way you don't have to live.
Posted by: trumanshow | July 14, 2008 at 04:24 PM
With so many peer reviewed science journals publishing papers on the demise of CO2 as a "toxic" - one must wonder why bother with these press releases? What has been clearly established is the marginal accuracy of the computer simulations used in the climate field. While climate may be the most complex system ever to be modeled - it has shown the current state of the art to be sorely lacking.
Posted by: Sulleny | July 14, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Sheesh! I didn't know that Code Pink was in the habit of hijacking threads here at GCC!
If you have it so bad in the USA, please, feel free to move to Cuba, or Venezuela, or Iran, or any other nice democratic country that shares your views. I hear that Hugo, Ahmadinejad, and Al Qaida are in search of fine patriotic freedom fighters like yourselves. Your first stylish explosives belt is free!
Those of us who have the audacity to serve in the US armed forces do so because we believe this country and her ideals are still worth fighting for. As American citizens you have the privilege to vote for the elected officials of your choice- so quit your whining, and thank God that you live in a free country. Love it or leave it... :)
Posted by: DieselHybrid | July 14, 2008 at 05:12 PM
CO2 is not the principal GHG emitted by cars.
It is something else. In the case of FCEVs, it is the only thing emitted... Pure, 100% GHG pollution!
When oh when, will you start demanding that we set limits on the absolute worst GHG, the noxious killer GHG? More people have died when exposed to it then any other GHG. We recently found several thousand of the dead, entombed in a vehicle whose name looks like T...n..c. Perished. While choking on the dangerous GHG, dihydro-oxide.
We can't have the 16 times more potent GHG, dihydro-oxide pollute and ruin our Mother GAIA with its now idyllic temperatures.
The Massachusetts's legal pro-fundamenti ought to file suit immediately with the Supreme Court to regulate the dangerous, killing pollutant, dihydro-oxide.
What's more we can't wait. We need emergency action. I recommend a reasonable program; toe sequester all open dihydro-oxide containers and encapsulate them, in order to prevent the most powerful GHG from entering the atmosphere and causing Runaway Global Warming.
As soon as temporary container caps are all constructed; we ought to set upon a program to drain any swirling pools of this terrible AGW inducing substance.
Other wise in a few centuries or maybe millenia, the temperature might deviate from today's perfection by a few tenths of a single degree, and that is totally unacceptable.
Roof over all the Seven Seas! Drain the Oceans!
And do it as a CRASH Program.
That is of course if our models that can't seem to be able to run backward and post-dict anything correctly, can be expected to correctly pre-dict the warming that our great, great, great, great great, grandchildren might have to face.
That is of course if GHG warming were to continue like it did for 20 out of the last 70 years; from 1978 to 1998. Of course, AGW has now mysteriously vanished for the last ten years. It should be getting warmer and warmer as the CO2 goes up from next-to-nothing to next-to-next-to-nothing. Global Warming was abducterd. It must surely be a "Big Oil Conspiracy".
Why do we know that? Why the great and wonderful Oz Wizard, the learned divinity school flunk-out and televangelist know-it-all, has told us so.
The intellectual successor to Billy Sunday, Billy Bakker (& Tipper Faye), the heir to Jimmy Swaggert's sterling reputation, has revealed all. The all-knowing Profit, the Algore, has decreed that is the New Revelation. It's Heresy to believe otherwise. And the Arch-Angel Hansen, a creature of the Algore, has arrived with Inquisitorial Sword to vanquish the fallen.
Perhaps Dr. Miskolczi's even newer, New Revelation might conflict with the older, New Gorean Revelation. Could the... Oh! Holy of Holies, 'Saturated GHG neo-Revelation' be True? Perhaps it requires a Convocation of the Nicene Bishoprics to preside over the theological quandary?
Meanwhile... Don't Wait!
Roof over all the Seven Seas! Drain the Oceans! We must act NOW. We need a CRASH Program.
As for the legal fundamenti cloaca, I recommend they do their part, as well. They should joyously cut their output of GHGs by 30%.
If Polynesian Pearl divers and Haitian zombies can with hold emitting CO2 for long periods, why can't 'Big Law' do as nearly as well, and stop breathing for 7.2 hours per day? Its an easy sacrifice. Not at all unreasonable. It'sonly a 30% reduction. Some were demanding a 50% reduction.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Anymore than H2O is a pollutant. Both are beneficial and necessary for life.
Really at times, you people are so Absurd.
Posted by: stas peterson | July 14, 2008 at 07:11 PM
I don't live in the US diesel hybrid. Just
Posted by: critta | July 14, 2008 at 08:31 PM
@stan
I see you have received a new personality infusion from America’s Anchorman. I also see he has wound you tighter than a clock. With this renewed strength of propose and zeal, you should personally research the plight of the starving polar bear in the now nearly ice free Arctic. We at GCC all agree. The New Gorean Revelation needs a sacrifice of a non believer. The bears would be grateful.
Posted by: Axil | July 14, 2008 at 08:35 PM
I believe that if the EPA were to raise the CAFE standards without acting on the utilities (50% of the US electricity supply comes from coal-fired power plants), it would not be fair. That said, GHG mitigation has to start somewhere ! Incentivizing people to go for higher gas mileage vehicles might work, within certain limits. For example: some credit unions give lower interest rates on new car loans if the car gets better-than-average gas mileage.
@Stas:
I might have missed this in your comments, but I believe that it is the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to H2O that is the cause for alarm.
Posted by: Pradeep | July 14, 2008 at 11:25 PM
I'm glad I'm not President of the USA. It has become the position of high-profile self-masochists who don't mind being scapegoats for the collective decisions and ignorance of the nation and the world.
By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, his opposition pissed and moaned that he was the anti-Christ too.
Do we have point source problems? Yes, but remember what you mother taught you: when you point at someone, you have three other fingers pointing back at yourself.
Posted by: NCyder | July 15, 2008 at 05:28 AM
@dieselhybrid,
How dare you suggest I leave the United States? Shame on you! What gives you the right? That's right, you don't have the right to tell people to leave. And I will make sure that people like you never have that right.
I am pointing out that our President and Vice President are documented dissemblers and raging hypocrites, bought and paid for by the very same country that provided the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia. These corrupt men are damaging our country, perhaps permanently, and as an American patriot it is my job to fight their influence and bring to daylight their illegal acts.
I am not whining. I work every day to make sure we have honest leadership and that we, collectively, make better decisions.
You're in the military. That means I pay your salary, too. So learn to think for yourself. Do you really think our president is working for the best interests of the country? How?
Posted by: dollared | July 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I believe that if the EPA were to raise the CAFE standards without acting on the utilities (50% of the US electricity supply comes from coal-fired power plants), it would not be fair.California already prohibits coal-fired electricity within its borders, and has a regime to prohibit its purchase from out of state also.
Posted by: Reality Czech | July 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
NCyder...
Mom's don't actually teach that little aphorism - it is torn from the Group Therapy Desk Reference Manual used by [pop] psychologists the world over. And, perversely, it does NOT apply to cartoon characters like Homer Simpson who suffer thru life with only three fingers per hand! Just wanted to... point that out;)
Posted by: Sulleny | July 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM
How dare you suggest I leave the United States? Shame on you! What gives you the right? That's right, you don't have the right to tell people to leave.
I just figured out the meaning of your name on here...'dollared' refers to the one dollar value of the education you received, right? Very clever!
You may want to google something called the "First Amendment". It protects the natural right we all have to tell you whatever we like...including that you ought to leave if things are so awful here.
Posted by: Matthew | July 15, 2008 at 12:46 PM
@ dollared-
(way off topic)
By your twisted logic all servicemen and women and anyone who supports them has failed to think for themselves- because only a fool would join ranks in our nation's military.
Meanwhile, anyone who reveals a shred of respect for their country, belief in its ideals, or faith in its future is immediately labeled a non-thinker.
Sounds very elitist. Unless... oh, I see... Senator Kerry, are you crashing GCC forums again? You're such a kidder! :)
I am grateful for my salary. And I too pay taxes and have never missed a vote- even through numerous deployments. I may not always agree with my elected officials- especially when armed conflict is involved- but I am sworn to defend them.
It may be surprising to learn that most of us in the military are not a war-mongers. Douglas McArthur once said: "The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war." We have a lot more at stake than most when America goes to war.
Stephen Decatur's once said: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."
Additionally, it may be a surprise to you that most of us didn't join the military for the pay. Admittedly, many of us could make much more on the "outside" if mammon were our chief end. Clearly it is not.
In this zeitgeist of anti-patriotism that you seem to have become part-and-parcel to (so much for thinking for yourself), it must be a foreign a concept to swallow that most of us joined the military for love of God and country- because we believe that some things are still worth fighting (and even dying) for.
Remember, that while you're free to play armchair quarterback wearing your aluminum-foil conspiracy hat and sipping KoolAid, there are those of us in the US military who are defending the very blanket of democracy that you sleep under.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
So feel free to mouth off to your heart's content. Just next time you meet a serviceman/woman or veteran- thank them for their service to your freedom. :)
Posted by: DieselHybrid | July 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM
@dieselhybrid.
You haven't answered my question, on topic. Please explain how the government's decision in this case is anything other than a cynical tactic to serve the Oil and Energy industries despite the damage it will cause to our people and our economy.
(The rest of you can skip the rest of this post, but DH needs a lesson in ethics, rhetoric and civics.)
Now DH, I need to try to get you to act as a responsible citizen:
1. Do not put bigotry in my mouth. I never suggested that military people cannot think for themselves. I was talking to you - just you.
2. Do not suggest that I do not have respect for my country. My respect for my country requires me to hold it, and its leaders, accountable when it and they fail to live up to their potential. You should do the same - that is the duty of a citizen.
3. Do not call me an elitist - it is a meaningless label meant only to discredit, spouted by Limbaugh and O'Reilly to try to attack their opponents, rather than to have to actually argue the merits of an issue. More importantly, you do not know me, so you have no basis for your accusation.
4. Do not feel entitled, or more of a citizen, because you bore arms for your country. We all get one vote. Military service is noble. So is being a trial lawyer, a teacher or a social worker.
5. Finally, do not impugn my patriotism. You have no standing for that. Shame on you. Right now I am spending my time trying to correct a military man who is spouting dangerous, anti-democratic ideas in a public forum. That is what patriots do to protect their country from dangers, internal and external.
Read some Thomas Jefferson, DH, not Stephen Decatur. Good luck.
Posted by: | July 15, 2008 at 01:58 PM
And the last off-topic post was from Senator Kerry again- I presume? Look, I'm sorry I didn't vote for you during the last Presidential election. No hard feelings? :)
By the way, did you get a chance to Google that "First Amendment" thingy yet? Like you, Hugo, Fidel and Ahmidenijad would also like to "spend their time trying to correct a military man who is spouting dangerous anti-democratic ideas in a public forum." So it appears you are in good company! :)
When holding my country and its leaders accountable, I prefer to be counted amoung the "Men in the Arena" rather than among "those cold & timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." We in the military support our country from within and have and will continue to deploy far and wide in its defense.
No sense of entitlement here. My fellow servicemembers and I put our money where our mouths are- and literally lay our lives on the line.
When things don't go the way we want, we don't whine and play armchair quarterback or plan a military coup d'etat, we vote for the elected officials of our choice to effect a desired change. It's called a Democracy.
As US servicemembers, we have been sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States (a document whose contents you appear to know little about) against all enemies foreign AND domestic. Far from being a self-proclaimed patriot, you seem to more closely resemble the latter's description.
Remember, your first explosives belt is free! :)
Posted by: DieselHybrid | July 15, 2008 at 07:45 PM
dollared:
Shirley you jest with your statement:
"Right now I am spending my time trying to correct a military man who is spouting dangerous, anti-democratic ideas in a public forum."
While you may disagree with Mr. Diesel, I hardly see how his ideas are dangerous or anti-democratic. Most of what he wrote comes from the mouths of good men wanting only the best for their country. Teddy R, could only be considered dangerous by those who disrespect him.
Posted by: Sulleny | July 15, 2008 at 08:03 PM
DH, you still haven't answered my on-topic question. You are avoiding it? I urge you to take a crack at justifying the administration's actions.
However, DH, I am flattered by your comparision to John Kerry, a true patriot who had the courage to question his leadership in a time of war. A real war.
I repeat, it is nothing short of shameful that you label me a terrorist for disagreeing with you ("first belt is free"). That is McCarthyite, pure and simple. I urge you to learn civil discourse.
The First Amendment allows me to try to correct you, and vice versa. It doesn't allow me to silence you, and vice versa. You are allowed to display your ignorance without any hindrance. I urge you to actually read the Constitution.
Finally, Sulleny, since you ask I should explain. "My country right or wrong...." to me, is anti-democratic. It would make sense in Napoleon's France, but not in the US. Suggesting that those who disagree with the administration should leave the country, that too is antidemocratic. That is my concern.
I will leave this thread to go back to my own efforts in the arena. I wish all you success in yours.
Posted by: Dollared | July 15, 2008 at 09:41 PM
@Dollared
Amazing consipiracy theories about Bush that you spout. Amazing that he has so much power over the price of oil, that he controls all of these:
The economy of China
Tthe economy of India
Other country's government subsidies of gasoline
Blocking of drilling in our own country
American truck/SUV over-production by the "big 3"
Lack of Hybrid/gas sipping vehicle choices in the US
American demand for gasoline (travel/style/convenience)
Sspeculation of oil prices thru foreign markets
Expensive US labor to drill for oil, dig for coal
"Easy to get to" Oil progresively harder to find
The lack of refinery building for the last few decades
Fed lending rates reduced to help bad financial choices
Fed lending rates causing the dollar to lose value
And many other factors which all affect what gas costs
Bush can, at most, influence some of these, but then a diametrically opposed House/Senate isn't the best path for that, now is it? Bush certainly isn't the answer to many people's prayers, and hopefully the next president can stir the pot a bit, but don't go looking for Bush to be a scapegoat to help yourself sleep better.
Too bad Bill Clinton's library get millions and millions from those same Saudis you speak of (Is he too, their slave?). Unfortunately this will be the way it is, the price of our indulgences sending money abroad - what better to invest the money back in than the greatest country on earth?
With all that said, let's figure out a plan to clean up the mess we made and get on with it!
Posted by: Skiing_In_The_Desert | July 16, 2008 at 09:36 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e553b8805a8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US EPA Moots Two Methods for Regulating GHG from Light-Duty Vehicles:
If the USA had had a "backstop" provision for CAFE, the SUV would never have existed.