Bush Calls Energy Bill A "Major Step"

President Inks New Law Requiring Automakers To Improve Fuel Efficiency By 2020

(CBS/AP)  President Bush signed into law Wednesday legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.

The legislation signed by Mr. Bush at a ceremony at the Energy Department requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It also ramps up production of ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.

In addition to vehicles, the bill sets standards for things we use in the home - like light bulbs, reports CBS News Radio's John Hartge.

Mr. Bush said the new requirements will help "address our vulnerabilities and dependency" on foreign oil by reducing demand for gasoline and diversifying the nation's fuel supply.

"We make a major step ... toward reducing our dependence on oil, fighting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations ... a nation that is stronger cleaner and more secure," said the president.

Mr. Bush was flanked by Democrat and Republican members of Congress who had ushered the legislation through.

The House passed the energy bill Tuesday by a 314-100 vote after the Senate cleared it last week following lengthy negotiations and sometimes testy confrontations. Bush had vowed to veto the original legislation passed by the House because it included $21 billion in taxes.

The tax provisions were dropped to get the bill approved.

Congress delivered the legislation to the White House late Tuesday in a gas-hybrid sedan.

Mr. Bush noted that earlier this year he had proposed a plan to cut gasoline use by 20 percent over the next 10 years. But the president has long opposed arbitrary numerical standards for vehicle fuel economy.

The legislation increases the federal standard automakers must meet to an industry wide 35 mpg for passengers cars, SUVs and small trucks. The standard for cars today is 27.5 mpg and for trucks and SUVs 22.2 mpg.

It requires refineries to increase the use of ethanol from about 6 billion gallons a year this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022 and mandates that by then at least 21 billion gallons are to come from feedstocks other than corn.

Mr. Bush praised that provision which would spur the development of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks such as prairie grass and wood chips.

"We understand the hog growers are getting nervous. The price of corn is up," said the president.

Flanking Mr. Bush were Senate Majority Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California as well as Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry. Dingell played a key role in working out a compromise on the vehicle fuel economy measure.

Democrats have hailed the legislation as a turn to a new direction in U.S. energy policy.

"I firmly believe this country needs to have a comprehensive energy strategy," said Mr. Bush before signing the bill. He referred to the need for more nuclear energy and domestic oil production - issues that the new energy bill ignores.

Instead, the bill focuses largely on conservation, calling for more energy efficiency in "light bulbs to light trucks" as Dingell observed during the House debate on the legislation.

"This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow" on energy policy, Pelosi said Tuesday shortly before the House passed the bill, sending it to the White House.

The bill also calls for improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs. It also calls for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and construction of commercial buildings.

The new lighting standards alone are projected to lower consumers' annual electricity bills by $13 billion in 2020, remove the need for 60 mid-size power plants and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, by 100 million tons a year, said the advocacy group Alliance to Save Energy.

Democrats said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs and reduce oil demand by 1.1 million barrels a day when the fuel-stingy vehicles are widely on the road.

The overall bill including more ethanol use and various efficiency requirements and incentives, will cut U.S. oil demand by 4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the current daily imports from the volatile Persian Gulf, Democrats said.

[toolmangler-2009]

Bush should push for noookyular cars!
Posted by downtowner97 at 07:53 PM : Dec 19, 2007


You would let every terrorist have his own driveable Nuclear bomb? Smmooooootttthhhhhhh,

[mikekleber]

The price of corn has increased. Yes. What is never mentioned is that the cost to produce a bushel of corn has risen dramatically also. If the price for a bushel of corn drops, but not the inputs, I can guarantee, we will be importing corn.

Also, isn''t it mentioned that Bush guaranteed a veto of the bill if high taxes for the oil giants was not removed???? There again lies our biggest problem.

[ubrew12]

alphaa10 said: "The net gain in energy from ethanol-- once all energy inputs (costs of production) are accounted for-- is laughably small. "
Besides which, if America wants to burn ethanol, why is it tarifing Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol up the wazoo? You can grow sugar-cane in Brazil year round, MidWest corn? Hardly, which means its hardly cost-competitive!!

This is another Farm welfare bill, of which there are too many already.

[alphaa10-2009]

zuggerjack2 said, "This is of course politics as usual, which means big-time compromises just to get the bill passed."
---
Exactly. Not much new ground was covered with this bill, essentially pure pork for the ethanol producing, giant-corporate-farm-hosting states.

Since it was only a vote for more federal money and other assistance, their congresspeople couldn''t wait to get behind the bandwagon. Naysayers with doubts about the wisdom of ethanol production were left out of the party.

More''s the pity, since ethanol product hardly qualifies as an improvement on national energy policy. Ethanol savages the MidWest ecosystem with pesticide and fertilizer runoff which goes directly into the Mississippi delta. That fertilizer runoff, alone, is responsible for algae bloom areas covering hundred of square miles, rendering normally rich waters into a wasteland.

The net gain in energy from ethanol-- once all energy inputs (costs of production) are accounted for-- is laughably small. Those voting for the bill today could care less about the science.

[alphaa10-2009]

payasyougo said, "This has been floating around for a while. Why do conservatives put up with this stuff?"
---
Because Bushbots are not easily taught new things. They learn slowly-- and from Bush, clearly, they learn absolutely nothing.

You ask, "Why do conservatives put up with this stuff?" One answer is they don''t-- true conservatives have better things to do. They are not interested by the primary-school smears that fascinate and challenge the minds of Bushbots.

Technically speaking, a conservative is not a Bushbot. Reason? A conservative has a consistent set of principles in a systematic theory of government (and reserves only contempt for Bushbots).

[zuggerjack1]

Amidst all the stonewalling, denials and squabbling this seems to be a pretty positive first step in initiating a solid, viable energy strategy for the nation. Too bad the bill didn''t include mandatory manufacturing of all-electric vehicles (or at least hybrids) with big rebates, and demand the immediate widespread implementation of renewable energy sources: wind, geothermal, and space solar power such as the kind written about in a book called Sunstroke by David Kagan.

This is of course politics as usual, which means big-time compromises just to get the bill passed.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by poopusbuttus at 07:18 PM : Dec 19, 2007

What victories!!???

Oh you mean the ones when they passed all tax bills giving loopsholes and exemptions to the rich? Yeah that was quite a win for the rich, too bad you''re not one of ''em!

You mean the ones, when they stopped funding for children''s health care??? Whatta victory!

If you''re talking about a WIN in Iraq, that was accomplished five weeks after our troops went over there! There''s no WIN in spending trillions on an occupation of Iraq...except maybe for Halliburton and Blackwater in terms of the money the''ve skimmed off this country.

Exactly what wins can you be speaking of, pray tell?

[downtowner97]

Bush should push for noookyular cars!

[poopusbuttus]

PAYASYOUGO -- You forgot to slip in and entry for 0845pm. That would be "Our troops are war criminals II" John Murtha

[payasyougo]

This has been floating around for a while. Why do conservatives put up with this stuff?

2008 Democratic National Convention Schedule of Events

7:00 PM ~ Opening - American flag burning
7:15 PM ~ Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N.
7:20 PM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:25 PM ~ Non-religious prayer and worship with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
7:45 PM ~ Ceremonial tree hugging
7:55 PM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:00 PM ~ ''How I Invented the Internet'' - Al Gore
8:35 PM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:40 PM ~ ''Our Troops are War Criminals'' - John Kerry
9.00 PM ~ Memorial service for Saddam and his sons - Cindy Sheehan
10:00 PM ~ ''What America Means to US'' - Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins
11:00 PM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 PM ~ ''My Friend Hugo Chavez'' - Sean Penn
11:15 PM ~ ''Free the Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay'' - Barbra Streisand
11:30 PM ~ ''Oval Office Affairs'' - William Jefferson Clinton
11:45 PM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:50 PM ~ ''How George Bush Brought Down the World Trade Towers'' - Rosie O''Donnell
12:15 AM ~ ''Truth in Broadcasting Award'' - Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore
12:25 AM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:30 AM ~ Satellite address by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
12:45 AM ~ Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton - Nancy Pelosi
1:00 AM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
1:05 AM ~ Coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton
1:30 AM ~ Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
1:35 AM ~ Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home!

[poopusbuttus]

And just when the libs thought that Bush, yet again, could do no good. And the victories just keep rolling in for the Republicans.

[rowdytexan2]

J, you dumped her!!! omg!!!

[rowdytexan2]

Save gas, drive a golf cart around your neighborhood! In winter its invigorating, in spring, summer, and fall, it''s absolutely glorious out there.lol

It''s time to quit making the sheiks and the Neocons billionaires...

Whatta big shindig for signing this law...and then cower like the bustward you are when vetoing children''s health care program. Gonna be another big shindig when you get that $40 billion bill for war on Iraq, so you can kill more people?

[speakinup]

I agree on the hydrogen cells. They offer promise.

I know it is an expensive outlay for photo cells, but they say that an area the size of Mass in Nevada would do it for the whole country, with current usage.

If ever there was a project the government should be involved with - this would be it.

I''d love to see all that money that''s leaving the US stay here. And to be able to tell Hugo Chavez, "welcome back to the stone age, hope you like eating that black stuff."

[speakinup]

ThinkHarder - Are you thinking of Ex-situ shale oil mining, where they dig it out of the ground, transport it to the facory for processing, then have 3 times the slag of original material mined to be getting rid of ?

There is something called in-situ Shale oil mining. At this point they have a EIS going on because it can be delivered at $30 a barrel, environmentaly friendly.

[speakinup]

"speakinup,,,, As I''ve said,, she was exactly like you --- I dumped her Posted by j-whitman

Uh, Yeah - I believe that...

[thinkharder-]

What about the idea of shale oil until we can get renewable, non-poluting energy going (solar cells) ?
Posted by speakinup

The problem with oil shale is that the environmental concerns are on par with those of standard open pit mining. Also, I don''t really like the idea of going from one fossil fuel to another (well its a derived form.) The combustion chemistry is similar so the emissions will be as well. On the upside, oil shale does report a descent energy return on investment at somewhere between 3-4, and we seem to have most of it right here at home.

Ethanol erks the h3ll outta me because it puts tremendous pressure on farmers to switch to feed grains which will put a real hurtin on other American grown crops, like cotton which is already a crippled industry. I think Ethanol will be a good transition energy source though being that there is little in the way of infrastructure to be changed. Eventually we''ll have to steer clear of bio-fuels as well.

Fuel cells like hydrogen or solar are certainly where the future''s at once the can get the energy gain ratio''s to look better, though they''re pushing corn based ethanol at an EROI of roughly 1.2 which is pretty bad.

There are so many options...we''ll figure it out.

[j-whitman]

speakinup,,,, As I''ve said,, she was exactly like you --- I dumped her

[speakinup]

I think that''s what your wife said to me last time I saw her, J.

"You like to keep it short."

So, did she leave you ? Or''d you dump her ?

[speakinup]

Dang J-whitman, it''s been 8 minutes. What are you doin, writing two sentences ?