Obama opens new front in climate change battle
President bids to wean US from gas-guzzling instincts with push for action to lower car emissions
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
GETTY IMAGES
U.S President Barack Obama: 'We have done little to increase the fuel efficiency of our cars for decades'
enlarge
The United States served notice yesterday that it finally intends to take firm action to combat the planet's climate crisis, announcing unprecedented plans to regulate vehicle emissions from 2012 with exhaust standards that match those sought for years by California and a handful of other states.
Unveiling the new plan, surrounded by car executives from the US, Japan and Europe, President Barack Obama left no one in doubt that he means to make good on his campaign promises to drag his country out of years of lethargy and inaction on climate protection.
"The status quo is no longer acceptable," President Obama declared, standing in the White House rose garden. "We have done little to increase the fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks for decades. This is unprecedented change."
The measures are the result of weeks of behind-closed-doors negotiation. If successfully enacted, they will reshape a car industry that is already trying to wean itself from its past gas-guzzling instincts and promise to make the American fleet 40 per cent cleaner and more fuel efficient than it is today.
Importantly, all sides have given their support to the package and will drop any related lawsuits. Although the standards impose new challenges on the car industry at a time of great economic strain, having certainty about what will be expected from it going forward was enough to buy its support.
With so many officials and industry executives around him, Mr Obama was clearly also firing across the bows of Congress, where his signature climate change bill that includes provisions for a controversial cap-and-trade system for industry emissions is likely to face formidable opposition. "This is staggering," said the governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger after hearing Mr Obama speak. "This president after 120 days in office has taken the action and pulled everyone together. We are ecstatic."
The proposed programme would cover the period 2012-2016 with the goal of achieving a standard of 35.5 miles per gallon across the fleet. Officials said that this will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, equivalent to taking 58 million cars off the road in the US for an entire year. It would also instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate car exhaust emissions for the first time.
Among those applauding the plan are environmental groups. "Few actions could have a more profound impact in the fight against global warming," commented Bill Becker, leader of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. "After an initial phase-in, every new vehicle sold in every state in the country will be required to meet California's clean-car greenhouse gas standards."
Officials conceded that the tough regulations will add an average of $600 (£387) to the cost of a new car but contended that the savings in fuel purchases would cancel out the extra cost within three years. "The fact is, everyone wins," the President insisted.
For years, California fought with the Bush White House for the right to set its own standards for vehicle emissions. The proposals, which were supported by other states including New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, triggered lawsuits from the car industry in Detroit, and the Bush administration was consistent in opposing California's initiatives. As part of this new deal, the state has agreed in advance to defer to Washington henceforth on emissions standards.
Climate change is one of many priorities for the new President and will have to compete with healthcare reform for his attention. He knows that his green agenda may be in particular peril on Capitol Hill because opinion polls continue to show that tackling global warming and energy wastage is one of the lowest priorities for an American public that is far more concerned with a return to economic prosperity.
"Ending our dependence on fossil fuels represents perhaps the most difficult challenge we have ever faced," President Obama said. "Ending this dependence will take time, will take incredible effort, will take historic innovation. More than anything else it will take a willingness to look past our differences."
The President added that the oil which would be saved by the policy is equivalent to the US's imports for an entire year from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela and Nigeria combined.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I'd love to know why we had a cooling period in the 70s while CO2 emission were going up.
I'd like to know how man without our present technology survived the warmer medieval Warm period.
I'd like to know why CO2 levels have been much higher than present during an ice age.
I'd like to know why if the Northwest Passage was sailed in 1903 that it is now a big deal that recently ice had melted enough to open the passage again. I'd love to know why every skeptic is supposedly on the take from big oil or coal, but alarmists are not questioned about relationships with alternative energy, carbon offset, or cap and trade entities? Perhaps you can answer of a few of those questions in your next article. You obviously need to here someone, anyone, give a different opinion. This might get you off to a good start.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordM
Prior to the fifteenth century most people believed the Earth was flat and that the Sun went round the Earth.
The fact that most people believe something or do not believe something is usually a very poor measure of scientific truth.
For the timebeing it would be safer to say the data is inconclusive, but that there are too many alarming observations to not want to make the world population well prepared for coming climate changes. They will come, either way...
It seems to me we are stuck in a kind of economical thinking which leads nowhere.
It is not a matter of developing technology anymore, it is a matter of establishing production capacity. The production of the new energy technologies will create abundant new jobs. It will enable us to perfect the technology on the way, making it a profitable sales product to other countries.
One thing is for sure, fossils WILL run out. It is wiser to make the conversion while they are still plenty. When we wait until they are scarce, we might face real global catastrophy, with many nations/areas not being able to make the conversion fast enough due to too great dependance on the fossil fuels.
Implementing renewables now will be a substantial contribution to a more stable world. We know renewables are viable, regardless of the sick nonsense coming out of the mouths of degenerate sub-humans (and yes, my anger IS sincere!).
Another factor is, that the remaining fossil fuels might come in handy the day we actually do understand enough of the climate to make accurate predictions how to make adjusments in order to keep the climate within reasonable margins. We might find out some day we NEED to emit a huge quantity of CO2 in order to avoid an ice-age. Right now, we are only guessing and gambling. Science is still far too primitive to present us with a definite, unequivocal answer.
Another factor is that the long-term biological effects of CO2-emissions are poorly understood. Some scientists welcome it, others warn us for an impending break-down of biological systems. Acidification of the oceans might wipe out major parts of marine life. Increased general metabolism among micro-organisms can cause pandemics which will make the svineflue look like a joke (which it actually is!). Those pandemics might wipe out complete species of mammals or others, including us.
From a scientific AND philosophical point of view, we are gambling like completely insane, irresponsible idiots. I follow many different branches of science, and right now I am more worried than ever before. Already 30 years ago some of us were starting to ask inconvenient questions like the ones above. But now, with increased knowledge, we KNOW there is no justification NOT to act now.
We will not cripple our economies. That is the responsibility of Big Corporate Bullshit. If they manage to convince the shareholders, we would be in business. We could have been in business since early 60-ies when San Fransisco started using geothermal energy. And during the 80-ies when the CSP-technology became viable. But there is no limit to human greediness and stupidity. That's lesson number 1 from the history of modern economics.
Final point is that a period of 10 years is completely irrelevant to the bigger picture. Without the CO2-emissions we might have experienced winters that could have been very much more severe. Isn't that a thought???
I read an article of his criticising climate change. He put a quote in it from a BBC reporter. Unlike most of the other readers, I clicked on the link and read the BBC article. The article was about the fact that climate change was happening and that human beings were responsible for it. The quote was taken out of context.
The fact that people read or listen to his drivel amazes me.
'goal of achieving a standard of 35.5 miles per gallon'
Currently available [Japanese] cars achieve greater than 40mpg (the one I occasionally drive achieves less than 5 litres per kilometre in modern units). I suspect the Tata 624 will achive close to 70mpg.
Anyway, the problem will be solved well before 2016 because:
a) the US won't have a motor industry
b) few Americans will be able to afford to drive cars, since the US is bankrupt and the economy is in freefall
c) the rapdi fall off in worldwide internationally tradeable oil associated with Peak Oil will result in the US (and many other nations) being starved of oil imports.
After that does of reality, I guess it's back to fantasy land for most folk.
The Wurlitzer media should stop giving this warmongering fraud who protects torturers and perpetuates the neocon attack on civil rights a free ride by headlining every one of his PR-stunts.
He's going to cut emissions? How? Like he closed Gitmo and pulled out of Iraq?
It is not for you or I to judge on weather climate change is man made or not, its the job of climate scientists, and not so called "scientists" funded by oil companies.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty confident that the President of the United States is going to be well informed on the Facts about climate change, and is not left to read conspiracy theories off the internet.
The whole idea is good when you sit down coolheaded and think that Bush never wanted to venture into the green zones. Obama at least is trying in his four years term if that lasts.
The idea is do it then tell the world.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
The whole idea is good when you sit down coolheaded and think that Bush never wanted to venture into the green zones. Obama at least is trying in his four years term if that lasts.
The idea is do it then the world.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Oh, yes, you mean modern consumers!. You advertice for a product (i.e. climate change), and then they (i.e. the consumers) expect instant satisfaction. If the desired effect is absent for a too long period, they will call it a scam.
Wake up, climate change is not a matter of "whether", is a matter of "when". Right now we seem to be doing a good job speeding up any changes that would have come anyway.
Obama might very well be mankinds last hope to re-structure vital parts of global infrastructure before all hell breaks loose...
I did not sleep the 15 days as my money is stolen UK you know.
Wake up, climate change is not a matter of "whether", You mean weather ???is a matter of "when". Now?Right now we seem to be doing a good job speeding up any changes that would have come anyway. How much have you spend. I will triple this.
Obama might very well be mankinds last hope to re-structure vital parts of global infrastructure before all hell breaks loose...No I like heel that is where all we go
Please I ask for forgiveness. Please do not tell Bush and Obama but you may tell Al Gore he is a good man I like him. He saved me once from the Arctic free Zone Have you seen him Please give him my honest regards. He went to Scotland with Scotch whiskey and told all about the whether weather, changes and all clapped, slapped, stopped, slipped, oh you clever you know what I mean.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Why shouldn't we strive to create more efficient cars?
The motive for utilising renewable energy is not simply to avoid global warming but to ween ourselves of oil, which is fast running out. I don't understand how 'sensible' people can argue against such brave politcal moves.
There is no evidence for the total CO2 emissions, that includes natural CO2, having a significant effect on the climate. After many billions of dollars and 20 years of searching for it, if it was there, don't you think it would have been found by now? And human emissions that remain in the air amount to around 3% of total emissions. If CO2 was significant to warming, why has there been no warming this century? Why are we cooling? Are you so desperate to be guilty? Obama wants you to believe you are.
Ask Obama for proof that CO2 is harmful before you let him take a penny off you with that as the excuse.
"Why shouldn't we strive to create more efficient cars?" No reason at all but better to do it without destroying the economy and putting people into dole q's.
"Oil is running out." That is blather. It will outlast your grand children. But it is valuable for more reasons than fuel. Fuel is a wasteful way to use it and better to find better ways to warm ourselves and move around, leave sufficient for the great grand kids so we don't have to grow cannabis to fuel the economy. OTOH...
Seriously, science progresses when not retarded by mythology like the CO2 nonsense. There is 100% no doubt new technology will provide economical means to provide energy. It may take awhile so to be prudent with oil is not unwise. To be on war-time rations due to economy destroying fuel surcharges and the craziness of the fraudulent ETS/carbon credits/tax and trade scam just gifts a huge trading advantage to less stupid countries. And puts people out of work.
Grand kids driving (or flying) around in their other than oil fuelled transport will say "why didn't grandpa use oil to stay happy instead of needlessly depriving himself, helping to incur massive debt that we are still paying and leaving us nothing in his will?" Grandma will say "Obama, dear, same as Brown and the EU. Poor man had no choice."
Someone derided Monckton's efforts. There is much truth in all he says. There is little truth to be found in the IPCC propaganda. That is why repeated assessments are needed. They can't get the climate to cooperate with their crystal ball computers.
Laptop Battery Laptop Battery Laptop Batteries Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery discount laptop battery notebook battery notebook battery computer battery computer battery replacement laptop battery replacement laptop battery notebook batteries notebook batteries