It took President Obama and a “super majority” Democratically-led Congress over a year to plan and pass healthcare legislation in this country. Some people still don’t quite know what is in that bill or what it will do, but already Washington D.C. has moved on to its next piece of legislation, the so-called American Power Act.
Among many other things, the bill proposed by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman opens up vast tracts of ocean for oil exploration, pumps billions into mass transit, encourages heavy trucks to switch from diesel to natural gas, and provides for the creation of a carbon offset trading house. So, is this bill any good, and will it ever actually make it into law?
I am no political analyst, and as this is a transportation blog, I am going to stick with the stuff directly related to that topic. For us green car geeks, there is a lot to be happy about in the climate bill actually. Among the best parts of this bill is that it provides funding to convert heavy duty trucks running on diesel to natural gas. Of course, this requires participation from truckers, and if the financial incentives aren’t there (never mind the natural gas fuel pumps) then this could be rather pointless. There are provisions to help natural gas manufacturing expand in this country, but it could be slow going at first. But there is also a good chunk of money being earmarked for advanced car technology, like electric and hydrogen cars. I can’t complain about that. There are also going to be more tax incentives to help make up the difference in price between clean and dirty cars.
Then there are the billions of bucks being dangled in front of states who improve their mass transit systems. America should have world-class public transportation, but well, we don’t in many places. With many states still deep in the red and unable to pay their bills as it is, the only way we will get good public transportation is if the Feds bankroll a big chunk of it. But there is something missing, notably, anything specifically dedicated to high-speed rail. Maybe it is in there. Maybe I missed it. But I’m having a hard time finding it. We really need some dedication to high-speed rail if we expect it to succeed, and already I feel like interest is waning, even in Washington.
How about that off-shore drilling though? You would think that, as millions of gallons of oil pump into the Gulf of Mexico, oil might be forced to sit on the sidelines. But no. Thousands of miles of ocean are being opened to exploration (not necessarily drilling… why drill if there is nothing there?) States can veto any drilling within 75 miles of their coastline, but stand to gain 37.5% of any oil revenue should they allow it. Doesn’t exactly seem like a great way to ween us off of crude. I don’t live in a fantasy-land where we can just quit oil overnight. But one would think a bill touted as a way to clean up our economy wouldn’t include… oil. Or “clean coal.” But hey, that’s Washington for you.
There are too many details to get into, but suffice to say, even if this bill does pass… I’m not sure how much good it will do. And that is a big IF, as the bill pretty much placates no one. Republicans call it a “job-killer,” environmentalists say it doesn’t go far enough, and EVERYBODY will have to pay for it one way or another. The price of clean energy, I guess.
Source: Reuters | Image: U.S. National Archives
PDF 
About Christopher DeMorro
Chris, this bill is a renamed version of “Cap & Trade” which is designed to increase energy costs exponentially and reducing pollution, if at all since it allows purchase of “permits to pollute”. that’s where the “Trade” comes in.
This bill is quite simply another method to redistribute wealth, only this time it is being redistributed to those who are already wealthy.
Selling permits to pollute does NOT reduce pollution, it increases pollution.
This energy cost increase bill will raise costs for those who are now at the very limit of their income. They will have to cut back on prescription medication, or food, or winter heat or summer cooling. In this respect the bill should be called population reduction through energy usage reduction. The energy cost increases will certainly cause some senior citizens to reduce heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. Both are known causes of death among the elderly.
The rebates to buy these “Non-polluting” vehicles will come from taxes taken from those who can not afford to buy or use these vehicles for any number of reasons.
The rules on rebates are:
If the money comes from the government, the GDP and all citizens are harmed.
Rebates that come from the manufacturer show that the product was overpriced originally.
Rebates from Government Motors, formerly General Motors actually come from the taxes paid by others as GM did not repay their government loans from profits, but from another TARP loan. This is like refinancing your home. You paid off the original loan, but you still have a mortgage on your home and you must still pay it off.
Chris, the plain fact is that government never earns any money. It never makes a profit. Government is a parasite that is tolerated when it performs necessary duties like national defense, which is greatly needed along our southern border.
Cash subsidies paid for the development of any desired product are costs to the taxpayer. The only subsidies that can be considered correct are the ones that have been used by cities and counties to entice business by reducing or eliminating taxes for a set period of time. These require no outlay by the taxing entity and do produce almost immediate results in increased employment, sales, and income taxes.
So I have a question for you. How many people are going to die to get you an electric car a year sooner? If you don’t like that question, take off your blinders and look at everything involved rather than just at the desirable end result. And yes I do believe that we will eventually have a preponderance of electric vehicles and that this will be an overall good. I shall not accept that we have to throw everything we now have that is good under the train to get there.
Chris, this bill is a renamed version of “Cap & Trade” which is designed to increase energy costs exponentially and reducing pollution, if at all since it allows purchase of “permits to pollute”. that’s where the “Trade” comes in.
This bill is quite simply another method to redistribute wealth, only this time it is being redistributed to those who are already wealthy.
Selling permits to pollute does NOT reduce pollution, it increases pollution.
This energy cost increase bill will raise costs for those who are now at the very limit of their income. They will have to cut back on prescription medication, or food, or winter heat or summer cooling. In this respect the bill should be called population reduction through energy usage reduction. The energy cost increases will certainly cause some senior citizens to reduce heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. Both are known causes of death among the elderly.
The rebates to buy these “Non-polluting” vehicles will come from taxes taken from those who can not afford to buy or use these vehicles for any number of reasons.
The rules on rebates are:
If the money comes from the government, the GDP and all citizens are harmed.
Rebates that come from the manufacturer show that the product was overpriced originally.
Rebates from Government Motors, formerly General Motors actually come from the taxes paid by others as GM did not repay their government loans from profits, but from another TARP loan. This is like refinancing your home. You paid off the original loan, but you still have a mortgage on your home and you must still pay it off.
Chris, the plain fact is that government never earns any money. It never makes a profit. Government is a parasite that is tolerated when it performs necessary duties like national defense, which is greatly needed along our southern border.
Cash subsidies paid for the development of any desired product are costs to the taxpayer. The only subsidies that can be considered correct are the ones that have been used by cities and counties to entice business by reducing or eliminating taxes for a set period of time. These require no outlay by the taxing entity and do produce almost immediate results in increased employment, sales, and income taxes.
So I have a question for you. How many people are going to die to get you an electric car a year sooner? If you don’t like that question, take off your blinders and look at everything involved rather than just at the desirable end result. And yes I do believe that we will eventually have a preponderance of electric vehicles and that this will be an overall good. I shall not accept that we have to throw everything we now have that is good under the train to get there.
Chris, this bill is a renamed version of “Cap & Trade” which is designed to increase energy costs exponentially and reducing pollution, if at all since it allows purchase of “permits to pollute”. that’s where the “Trade” comes in.
This bill is quite simply another method to redistribute wealth, only this time it is being redistributed to those who are already wealthy.
Selling permits to pollute does NOT reduce pollution, it increases pollution.
This energy cost increase bill will raise costs for those who are now at the very limit of their income. They will have to cut back on prescription medication, or food, or winter heat or summer cooling. In this respect the bill should be called population reduction through energy usage reduction. The energy cost increases will certainly cause some senior citizens to reduce heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. Both are known causes of death among the elderly.
The rebates to buy these “Non-polluting” vehicles will come from taxes taken from those who can not afford to buy or use these vehicles for any number of reasons.
The rules on rebates are:
If the money comes from the government, the GDP and all citizens are harmed.
Rebates that come from the manufacturer show that the product was overpriced originally.
Rebates from Government Motors, formerly General Motors actually come from the taxes paid by others as GM did not repay their government loans from profits, but from another TARP loan. This is like refinancing your home. You paid off the original loan, but you still have a mortgage on your home and you must still pay it off.
Chris, the plain fact is that government never earns any money. It never makes a profit. Government is a parasite that is tolerated when it performs necessary duties like national defense, which is greatly needed along our southern border.
Cash subsidies paid for the development of any desired product are costs to the taxpayer. The only subsidies that can be considered correct are the ones that have been used by cities and counties to entice business by reducing or eliminating taxes for a set period of time. These require no outlay by the taxing entity and do produce almost immediate results in increased employment, sales, and income taxes.
So I have a question for you. How many people are going to die to get you an electric car a year sooner? If you don’t like that question, take off your blinders and look at everything involved rather than just at the desirable end result. And yes I do believe that we will eventually have a preponderance of electric vehicles and that this will be an overall good. I shall not accept that we have to throw everything we now have that is good under the train to get there.
ChuckL: I agree that subsidies are a blunt means to an end. In fact I propose that all subsidies on oil be terminated too and that all costs associated with oil use be passed on directly to the consumer through gas prices. Since this includes the cost of emission related healthcare expenditures and the cost of extra defence spending to safeguard the steady flow of oil and the cost to the economy of wildly fluctuating oil prices this should put gas prices way above $10/gallon according to some studies. No need to subsidize EV’s with unsubsidized gas prices like that: they’ll sell like hot cakes.
ChuckL: I agree that subsidies are a blunt means to an end. In fact I propose that all subsidies on oil be terminated too and that all costs associated with oil use be passed on directly to the consumer through gas prices. Since this includes the cost of emission related healthcare expenditures and the cost of extra defence spending to safeguard the steady flow of oil and the cost to the economy of wildly fluctuating oil prices this should put gas prices way above $10/gallon according to some studies. No need to subsidize EV’s with unsubsidized gas prices like that: they’ll sell like hot cakes.
ChuckL: I agree that subsidies are a blunt means to an end. In fact I propose that all subsidies on oil be terminated too and that all costs associated with oil use be passed on directly to the consumer through gas prices. Since this includes the cost of emission related healthcare expenditures and the cost of extra defence spending to safeguard the steady flow of oil and the cost to the economy of wildly fluctuating oil prices this should put gas prices way above $10/gallon according to some studies. No need to subsidize EV’s with unsubsidized gas prices like that: they’ll sell like hot cakes.
I find it funny that whenever any environmental legislation makes it through committee (even one as lop-sided as this one), the Republicans start screeching it’s “a job killer” and, yet, their party is primarily responsible for the outsourcing of American labor.
I find it funny that whenever any environmental legislation makes it through committee (even one as lop-sided as this one), the Republicans start screeching it’s “a job killer” and, yet, their party is primarily responsible for the outsourcing of American labor.
I find it funny that whenever any environmental legislation makes it through committee (even one as lop-sided as this one), the Republicans start screeching it’s “a job killer” and, yet, their party is primarily responsible for the outsourcing of American labor.