Auto Alliance Motion to Intervene
PDF Pages: 1 2
In Emissions Battle, Automakers Pitted Against Miners, Farmers, Timber, and a Host of Politicians
June 8, 2010 By 30 Comments
What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.
Have you got links to the original complaints that were filed? I’m curious to read their arguments.
J. Brad Hicks,
Sorry to say that I don’t, if I remember I’ll look into it today and see if I can’t find them for you
Have you got links to the original complaints that were filed? I’m curious to read their arguments.
J. Brad Hicks,
Sorry to say that I don’t, if I remember I’ll look into it today and see if I can’t find them for you
Why do miners, farmers etc give a shit about fuel economy? shouldn’t it be john deer and such that would be petitioning??
Why do miners, farmers etc give a shit about fuel economy? shouldn’t it be john deer and such that would be petitioning??
Can you tell us what auto companies were involved here? I would like to avoid buying any of their cars. There is utterly no need to reduce “carbon” (actually carbon dioxide) emissions, nor deprive Americans of our freedom to buy and drive whatever sort of car we want. I have had enough of nanny and bully government for more than a lifetime.
Also, could the moderator (I hope there is one) remove the comment by Alex, which contains an infantile profanity. I would, someday, love to go to a liberal blog that doesn’t contain an obnoxious vulgarity by the second comment. Does any exist?
DBecker,
I don’t remove comments unless they directly insult another person. Last I checked this is a free country and free speech is still protected… funny, it’s usually the conservatives who are complaining about that one. To use your words, I’m not interested in being a nanny on this site. If you don’t like the conversation you can choose to browse elsewhere. Vulgarity is a part of human nature, don’t try and make the ridiculous claim that only liberals do it. That’s just laughable. I’ve seen plenty of conservative-dominated comment strings loaded with vulgarity. Also, this blog is not a “liberal blog.” Clearly this is the first and only article you’ve ever read here. We have a wide coverage from all over the spectrum, and we value that aspect of the blog.
As for your GW denial, I’ve long since stopped wasting my time trying to show the fringe how utterly baseless their denials are, and I’m not going to start it back up with you. I have better things to spend my time on.
You can look up who the auto manufacturers are who are covered by the Auto Alliance yourself:
http://www.autoalliance.org/index.cfm?objectid=2F8FEC8C-1D09-317F-BB0A2E89FBF385CA
Can you tell us what auto companies were involved here? I would like to avoid buying any of their cars. There is utterly no need to reduce “carbon” (actually carbon dioxide) emissions, nor deprive Americans of our freedom to buy and drive whatever sort of car we want. I have had enough of nanny and bully government for more than a lifetime.
Also, could the moderator (I hope there is one) remove the comment by Alex, which contains an infantile profanity. I would, someday, love to go to a liberal blog that doesn’t contain an obnoxious vulgarity by the second comment. Does any exist?
DBecker,
I don’t remove comments unless they directly insult another person. Last I checked this is a free country and free speech is still protected… funny, it’s usually the conservatives who are complaining about that one. To use your words, I’m not interested in being a nanny on this site. If you don’t like the conversation you can choose to browse elsewhere. Vulgarity is a part of human nature, don’t try and make the ridiculous claim that only liberals do it. That’s just laughable. I’ve seen plenty of conservative-dominated comment strings loaded with vulgarity. Also, this blog is not a “liberal blog.” Clearly this is the first and only article you’ve ever read here. We have a wide coverage from all over the spectrum, and we value that aspect of the blog.
As for your GW denial, I’ve long since stopped wasting my time trying to show the fringe how utterly baseless their denials are, and I’m not going to start it back up with you. I have better things to spend my time on.
You can look up who the auto manufacturers are who are covered by the Auto Alliance yourself:
http://www.autoalliance.org/index.cfm?objectid=2F8FEC8C-1D09-317F-BB0A2E89FBF385CA
Very interesting. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Nick.
Digging into the motion, I can see why auto manufacturers are worried. They’re afraid that the national program for emissions passed under this rule will be overturned. As it stands, the auto industry would be allowed to exceed clean air standards in one state as long as other states were low enough to offset the overage. If this reverted back to the old (suspended) rules, they would have to comply in each state separately. The auto industry doesn’t want this, and makes no attempt to hide their concern. In fact, they seemed to lay it on pretty thick in the motion. I have to say I was reaching for my violin and eye drops as I read it.
Seriously, though… the question comes down to whether emissions is a state issue or a federal one. Most of us would say that it is a global issue, but we can’t forget that local emissions affect us primarily on the local level. Sure, we have to set realistic goals and make compromises in order to get anything done, but I’m a little wary of the national approach. It makes the statement that global warming/climate change are bigger issues than health problems related to air pollution. Just not sure I agree with that approach.
Very interesting. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Nick.
Digging into the motion, I can see why auto manufacturers are worried. They’re afraid that the national program for emissions passed under this rule will be overturned. As it stands, the auto industry would be allowed to exceed clean air standards in one state as long as other states were low enough to offset the overage. If this reverted back to the old (suspended) rules, they would have to comply in each state separately. The auto industry doesn’t want this, and makes no attempt to hide their concern. In fact, they seemed to lay it on pretty thick in the motion. I have to say I was reaching for my violin and eye drops as I read it.
Seriously, though… the question comes down to whether emissions is a state issue or a federal one. Most of us would say that it is a global issue, but we can’t forget that local emissions affect us primarily on the local level. Sure, we have to set realistic goals and make compromises in order to get anything done, but I’m a little wary of the national approach. It makes the statement that global warming/climate change are bigger issues than health problems related to air pollution. Just not sure I agree with that approach.
My family does raises cattle. Fuel economy isn’t the issue – power is the issue. Much of the equipment used daily requires heavy duty trucks with lots of power. Regardless of what bone-headed “analysts” will tell you, long-term costs of operating a diesel truck to a gasoline powered truck is significantly higher in ranching applications. Plus the logistics of having differing fuel for on-road vs. off-road vs. summer vs. winter.
CAFE mandates have virtually eliminated gasoline trucks from having the required power for ranching applications.
My family does raises cattle. Fuel economy isn’t the issue – power is the issue. Much of the equipment used daily requires heavy duty trucks with lots of power. Regardless of what bone-headed “analysts” will tell you, long-term costs of operating a diesel truck to a gasoline powered truck is significantly higher in ranching applications. Plus the logistics of having differing fuel for on-road vs. off-road vs. summer vs. winter.
CAFE mandates have virtually eliminated gasoline trucks from having the required power for ranching applications.
Alex:
John Deere is just another manufacturer who wants to know what the rule is so they may plan accordingly.
The consumers who are protesting (farmers, ranchers, miners, etc.) are concerned that the rules will force the manufacturers to down-size their vehicles making them less productive to those consumers.
Alex:
John Deere is just another manufacturer who wants to know what the rule is so they may plan accordingly.
The consumers who are protesting (farmers, ranchers, miners, etc.) are concerned that the rules will force the manufacturers to down-size their vehicles making them less productive to those consumers.
The farmers and ranchers need to un-twist their panties. Nobody is going to stop building medium-duty vehicles just because the general CAFE standard goes up. The F350 and even bigger chassis will still be there for them.
The farmers and ranchers need to un-twist their panties. Nobody is going to stop building medium-duty vehicles just because the general CAFE standard goes up. The F350 and even bigger chassis will still be there for them.
The automakers side with the Government? Why is that odd?
The government owns the automakers.
The automakers side with the Government? Why is that odd?
The government owns the automakers.
Mr. Chambers: We are a little testy, aren’t we? Please not that I really didn’t say only liberal sites contain vulgarity. If you wish to criticize, you should parse words a bit better. I do agree that vulgarity is part of human nature; civility and decency overcome it, and other human faults, in adults. Your use of the word “denial” in the context of AGW is disgusting and ad hominem. You should be aware that there is extensive peer reviewed literature that shows AGW is incorrect; I’ve read it, actually.
DBecker,
“Testy,” “Please note,” “Parse,” “ad hominem”… Get over yourself. I guess the conservative crowd has its fair share of elitists too, no? The problem with GW denialists like you is that you choose to only believe the science that supports your cause, whereas the rest of us choose to believe the 99% of science that thinks GW is a reality. “Extensive”? Seriously? I guess, just as with this blog, you’ve only read a tiny portion of what science has to offer if you think the GW denial studies represent an extensive body of peer-reviewed literature. And, any time somebody says to me something along the lines of “I’ve actually read it” or “I know what I’m talking about” or “I’m a PhD,” that is a bold faced clue that they feel they don’t have a full set of marbles with which to engage in conversation.
And, because I really do have better things to do with my time than converse with “Becker PhD” about topics that have long been settled by the VAST majority of people on this planet, this will be my last response to Mr. Becker… no matter what kind of drivel he further espouses.
Mr. Chambers: We are a little testy, aren’t we? Please not that I really didn’t say only liberal sites contain vulgarity. If you wish to criticize, you should parse words a bit better. I do agree that vulgarity is part of human nature; civility and decency overcome it, and other human faults, in adults. Your use of the word “denial” in the context of AGW is disgusting and ad hominem. You should be aware that there is extensive peer reviewed literature that shows AGW is incorrect; I’ve read it, actually.
DBecker,
“Testy,” “Please note,” “Parse,” “ad hominem”… Get over yourself. I guess the conservative crowd has its fair share of elitists too, no? The problem with GW denialists like you is that you choose to only believe the science that supports your cause, whereas the rest of us choose to believe the 99% of science that thinks GW is a reality. “Extensive”? Seriously? I guess, just as with this blog, you’ve only read a tiny portion of what science has to offer if you think the GW denial studies represent an extensive body of peer-reviewed literature. And, any time somebody says to me something along the lines of “I’ve actually read it” or “I know what I’m talking about” or “I’m a PhD,” that is a bold faced clue that they feel they don’t have a full set of marbles with which to engage in conversation.
And, because I really do have better things to do with my time than converse with “Becker PhD” about topics that have long been settled by the VAST majority of people on this planet, this will be my last response to Mr. Becker… no matter what kind of drivel he further espouses.
Hey! There’s a bigger issue than global warming!
THE EARTH IS FLAT! Yes, that’s right! Flat! And there are twelve other people on this planet who believe as I do. So I’m only going to listen to their research and no one else’s. So there, Nyah.
Hey! There’s a bigger issue than global warming!
THE EARTH IS FLAT! Yes, that’s right! Flat! And there are twelve other people on this planet who believe as I do. So I’m only going to listen to their research and no one else’s. So there, Nyah.
On a lighter note, I do find it interesting the auto manufacturers side with the government on this one, although I see the reasoning. They would have a clear, nationwide path to follow for gearing down emissions and increasing mileage.
The only I don’t care for is the “higher emissions there, lower emissions here” concept for a national average. It’s basically a version of cap-and-trade. I’d much rather see the cap, rather than the trade.
On a lighter note, I do find it interesting the auto manufacturers side with the government on this one, although I see the reasoning. They would have a clear, nationwide path to follow for gearing down emissions and increasing mileage.
The only I don’t care for is the “higher emissions there, lower emissions here” concept for a national average. It’s basically a version of cap-and-trade. I’d much rather see the cap, rather than the trade.
Greetings,
How much electricity and natural gas is used to explore for petroleum, extract it, transport it, refine to gasoline (or diesel, etc.), transport it again, and then pump it into your tank?
Some sites I’ve found that are trying to answer this question:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
http://planet.betterplace.com/forum/topics/electricity-vs-oil
Just to refine the oil to make gasoline, it may take 3kWh or 7.5kWh (plus many therms of natural gas?), so for the refining alone, it could be used to move an EV 30-50 miles — without using the gasoline!
Can you confirm/deny/correct these numbers? The HUGE upshot of this is that switching to EV’s would NOT stress the electricity grid, and it might even reduce it?
Sincerely, Neil
Greetings,
How much electricity and natural gas is used to explore for petroleum, extract it, transport it, refine to gasoline (or diesel, etc.), transport it again, and then pump it into your tank?
Some sites I’ve found that are trying to answer this question:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
http://planet.betterplace.com/forum/topics/electricity-vs-oil
Just to refine the oil to make gasoline, it may take 3kWh or 7.5kWh (plus many therms of natural gas?), so for the refining alone, it could be used to move an EV 30-50 miles — without using the gasoline!
Can you confirm/deny/correct these numbers? The HUGE upshot of this is that switching to EV’s would NOT stress the electricity grid, and it might even reduce it?
Sincerely, Neil