## 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:

• Executive Order

• 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

### Comments

The Administration’s goal is to finish developing the regulation by the end of 2008.

End of 2008!?!?!? Oh heck, why rush? It's not as if Peak Oil is around the corner.

In other words, they're still not going to do anything about it until Bush's term ends. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Junior tripled the price of oil...he did the job he was put there to do.

SJC:

Doubtful he has anything to do with the price of oil. If you're going to point a finger anywhere I suggest looking at OPEC.

I like the price of oil right where it is. Not too high to do lasting damage, but high enough to cause much of the activity we read about right here every day.

Make mine Prius!

I think even a slightly price raise is sustainable. A further surge of $5/barrel would not be devastating. I recalled it used to$3.69/gal(regular) one time. SUV were not uncommon in the gas stations during that time.

As likely to succeed as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

For latest news on biofuels, please visit:

http://www.ethanol.de

Make mine biodiesel!

One electric to go please!

Let's hope that the Regulation ends up being much more significant than Bush's foolish 20 in 10 plan. 20% in 10 years is pathetic! The average American could reduce 20% in about 30 days just by making responsible decisions. THEN we could get to work on REAL reductions. ALSO notice that his plan calls for just 5% reduction through increased fuel efficiency. 5% in 13 years! That's not a goal, it's a placebo. And the rest of his plan (15%) is really an ethanol/corn subsidy that, I'm sorry to say, isn't going to do much to reduce emissions OR oil dependence. America deserves better than this. We should demand it !

you guys are comical, we won't even get close to bush's 20 in ten. Actually you could cut yours 100% by walking!!! But will you?
No gas is dirt cheap that's why people don't car pool in big numbers, focus on emmissions instead of unreachable goals.

Interesting that there's no mention of avoided usage at all -- you know, dump money into expanding/improving/lowering price for mass transit, be it subway, bus, or commuter rail.

It requires far less fuel to take the train from NYC to DC than it does to fly or to drive. Improve the speed, reduce the variance, and increase the comfort of Acela Boston to DC, and then extend the line to Richmond, Raleigh, Greensboro, Charlotte, Greenville, Atlanta, Macon, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami. Get the states to chip in some since it will have such a positive impact on their economy, ecology, and take cars off the road to lighten traffic (which is getting bad fast throughout the South).

Improving Amtrak improves transportation robustness (think 9/12/2001 -- 9/20/2001), improves public safety (think Hurricane Katrina evacuation possibilities), improves the economy by allowing business travel more efficiently, and helps more Americans spend time with family and friends, all in a system that should be faster than driving, more comfortable than flying, and less stressful than either.

Stomy,
Naarh, too sensible , hydrogen fuel cell is the ticket , expensive,
high servicing costs , explosion risk , but will give those big oil buddies
something to flog for the next hundred years or so ,
Trains ,naarh, their for nancy boys !

We are in a planetary emergency and these clowns are going to take until the end of 2008. Don't bother. Just wait for the next president who, hopefully, will actually give a rat's ass about global warming and peak oil.

When it comes to drilling, they want to fast track. When it comes to actually conserving oil, they want to take their sweet time.

The Bush family has been cozy with the Saudi family for a long time. The Saudis make an estimated $200 million per day extra profit on the run up in the price of oil. The oil industry made more than$100 billion in profits in 2005 and 2006. It was obvious that an invasion of Iraq would cause turmoil and naming Iran as "axis of evil" would cause problems.

Saying that supply is the way...ANWR needs drilling, we don't need CAFE, Global Warming is not proven..all send signals that it is oil and only oil. Don't tell me that W can not affect the price of oil..he has and still does.

He's wants a plan to reduce gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions???
Here's your first step junior; undo everything you've done in the last 6 years.

In a Whitehouse full of OIL people reducing gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is just not going to happen.

Gas prices are up 44 cents a gallon here in AZ since the Dems took control of congress. A whole bunch of promisses and no results. Sorry to say, that not W's fault.

READERS: Please disregard the ignorant comment above. It was made by a Imperialist Republican who hears the word 'progressive' and thinks car insurance. Blaming the Democrats... shame on you. There were no Democrats in control of the congress last year at this time, and gasoline prices were HIGHER. You logic stinks worse than a petroleum hydrocracking facility.

Vitriol aside: It's not all GWB's fault either. It's the fault of every internal-combusting red blooded human being who turns up their cultured noses at the mere thought of WALKING somewhere. It is the fault of America's suburbanization, causing more people to commute farther every day. It is the fault of government, too (not either party alone), for not providing a viable alternative to our blacktop infrastructure.

To take a page from Ronnie's playbook: Just say no (to using fossil fuels)! We should have a D.A.R.E.-like program to inform 5th graders nationwide about the dangers of their parents' habit of using (petroleum).

My understanding is that the target is a 20% reduction from the projected gasoline consumption in 20 years, not 20% below today's consumption. The first target is a lot easier to hit. I checked the White House press release and press conference to confirm, but could not find the details, just a lot of "20 in 10" talking points.

Does anyone know which it is, 20% below today or 20% below the projection for 20 years out?

Sorry meander I can't say for sure... But given that the 'greenhouse gas emissions reductions' are *intensity* targets (meaning you can pollute twice as much if you triple your productivety) I'd say the later is a safe bet.

I don't think it matters which target the 20% is from. In 20 years, it is quite clear that worldwide oil production decline will bring about the 20% reduction on its own, without any legislative effort.

This executive order is complete PR BS. It provides insurance to the outgoing Republicans without requiring any sacrifice until the day Bush leaves office. If the requirements are met, Bush can take credit for it, even though the work of meeting requirements would be done by the successor. If it fails, he's not at fault since he's not in office. If gas prices continue to rise, it will be because a democrat is in power. If the gas prices comes down, it will be because of Bush's "executive order" and 20 in 10 legislation. It's all a PR game. (Not to say that Democrats don't play politics either).

B.C.D.

A petroleum D.A.R.E., brilliant idea!! I wonder how hard it would be to get funding for that program. :>

Democrats have been bleating for a new non-energy Man about as long as they have been bleating for a new non-capitalistic Man. Same results: Nada, Zero, Ephus...

The comments to this entry are closed.