That requires a Congress that will appropriate the funds to do so. (The president can issue fuel-efficiency regulations, but he can't allocate funds to a major new project without Congress.) If we want to get this done, we need to elect congresspersons who want to take us forward into the 21st Century, not backward into the 19th.

backward into the 19th

These days, more like backward into the 13th.

Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!

;-)

Pretzel:

Thanks for your reply in that other thread. Much appreciated. And I bet you feel better for it.

This will be great for the auto industry, since it will make American cars more desirable in the export market, reducing our trade deficit.

That, and also that whenever "conservatives" are presented with objectively better and worse choices, they'll always go with the worse. It's not just with gas mileage. It's the same dynamic with lightbulbs, or plastic v. paper v. reusable shopping bags, or anything where a compelling reason exists to chose one thing over another. Apart from economic motives, there's also a desire to assert independence, which in "conservatives" is manifested as adolescent defiance. So, naturally there's no coherent explanations.

It's actually an incoherent explanation by Benen and the TP writer. Romney was referring to tailpipe emission standards, not fuel efficiency standards. They're not the same thing.

Fuel efficiency standards are set by the Department of Transportation not the EPA.

I've never fully understood why Romney is so eager to go backwards

Because backwards is the opposite of Obama.

@ bannedagain

re: "incoherent" - you should learn the meaning of that word. If you were correct about the complete separation of DOT and EPA jurisdiction on the gas mileage and tailpipe emission issues, then Benen would be "wrong" or "incorrect". However, it his meaning was clear, ie not "incoherent".

But you are wrong:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

"EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, through reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improved fuel use from on-road vehicles and engines, from the smallest cars to the largest trucks."

Your own link has already been corrected to say that the production haitus is not, repeat NOT due to slow sales of the Chevy Volt.

Chevy sold over 10,000 Volts in the last 12 months, compared to less than 3,000 the prior year.

Yet another example of Shooter's selective reading skills.

Chevy set as their expected high a 300% increase in sales of the Chevy Volt. They achieved a 272% increase in sales. For the record their bottom line was a negative rate (below the rate of sales the year before). Unless they sold less than the amount sold the year before production was going to continue. For those of you who don't know a damn thing about the auto industry (yet still arrogantly presume that you know enough to know what a production slow down means) auto makers, when introducing a new line of vehicle, have to guess at what expected sales are going to be and then adjust production as those sales go through. Clearly GM's expected rate of 300% was too high for the Chevy Volt. However this does NOT automatically mean that the sales of the Volt were a. non productive of GM or b. that they will discontinue production. Out of curiosity to Shooter and RobDon do either of you know what the annual loss of expected rate is for any new model car introduced to the market? For that matter do you know what the annual loss rate was versus the expected number for all new vehicle models produced by GM? No? Then you are assuming motivations on the basis of YOUR subjective interpretation and are presenting them incorrectly as "fact" when in reality they are your "opinion" about a subject that you have done ZERO research on. For the record the spokesperson at GM states that they are closing down another plant in Ottawa to move production here to the United States and that plant was slated to begin production of the newest year model of the Impala. Because they are closing the plant down they are having to temporarily assign production to different plants here in the US. The spokesperson even states that they overproduced the Chevy Volt accounting for this which would suggest that GM has been planning the US switch for some time now. The indication of GM opening additionally factories in the US or increasing US production of autos while decreasing foreign production is a GOOD sign, NOT a bad sign (unless your goal is to lose US jobs).

The article you linked by USA Today, in fact, argues the point I am making and disproves the argument Shooter is making. That is what I do not understand. The article itself disproves the claim you are making and yet linking to. Did you not bother to read the article or do you just suspend any and all information that does not compute with the narrative you've already decided exists inside your own head?

On a side note I am completely irritated by USA Today making the headline GM shuts down due to slow sales when the article itself doesn't assert that sales have slowed.

General Motors is shutting down, for a month, the plant that makes its well-known Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car. But GM says its is for retooling to produce the coming new Impala, and not, as the report indicated, to cut back this year's Volt production.

Mike, if you believe those numbers, I have a bridge to sell you. They aren't taking a break, they are changing the plant to make an entirely different car. Moreover, the Volt was Obama's raison d'etre for nationalizing GM. Time will tell, but I'm confident that business doesn't close production on products with positive cash flow.

No they are not. This plant will still produce the Chevy Volt and according to the article you linked to the spokesperson stated that the plant will continue production of the Volt. Did you even read this article?!

GM was not nationalized. GM is a privately owned company. I don't even know where this comes from. As far as why Obama gave subsidy money to GM that was to save the entire industry. The Obama Administration did state that it would give GM additional subsidies if GM chose to produce a new line of green energy vehicles and as part of re-tooling production the government did specify that vehicles would have to meet higher mileage requirements than previously. However there was never a specification that GM would not be saved unless it produced green energy vehicles or that GM was being saved precisely to produce green energy vehicles. This is YOUR hyperbole and straw man argument. Did not you JUST complain on the other page that you do not like hyperbole because it grossly misrepresents the status of serious issues? Hypocrisy much?

You are making a statement of fact on the basis of your ignorance. I cannot for the life of me understand this. You have no information about production rates for the auto industry and no comparative model to use and yet you are confident that it means X. How are you making this assertion? The fact that you believe it to be true doesn't automatically make it true.

As I already asked: when GM introduced new cars what were the expected rate sales, the bottom line sales, and what were the actual sales in comparison to these rates? Do you even have a point of reference here?

I also love the conspiracy. Yes GM lied about it sales. Why? Well because it makes Obama happy! *eyeroll*

raison d'etre =reason for existence.forgive the nitpicking,it's the French in me that can't stand stuff like this.

Moreover, the Volt was Obama's raison d'etre(should read reason) for nationalizing GM.

I think i understand why Economic policies and governing do confuse you.

Sometimes i really wish that global financial collapse had happened in 2005-2006.This would have given conservatives and some really not smart people in our society to come to grasp with the magnitude of the catastrophe.

Even though FDR had some pretty rough times navigating through the conservative nuttiness and insanity,the fact that he came into office two years after the crash helped.

Shooter!for once,please understand that in 09 there weren't any private capital lying around to help the automobile industry,the only capital that was available,was public and yes sometimes innovation happens and Chevy volt can be that fruit.

We should all be happy that-- the sector is alive.

Quid fit!

So, being a Republican, when confronted by facts that don't conform to your dogma, you just wave them away as lies.

And dear god, the way you guys can pack so many falsehoods into so very few words is a testament to your derangement. Obama didn't "nationalize" GM. Last time I checked, the U.S. government owns not a single share of GM.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GM+Major+Holders

The Canadian government still owns a bit less than 10% and the UAW trust that picked up GM's obligations for medical benefits for retired employees owns a bit more than 10%. And the company that was created as a toxic waste dump for GM's ongoing liabilities has about 2%. The rest of the company is owned by private investors. So, that would be a lie.

The other lie would be the claim that Obama nationlized GM to save the Volt. Yeah, right. Because clearly forcing everyone to drive a Volt was such a critical part part of Obama's Secret Plan to Destroy America as We Knew and Loved It that he saved GM, Chrysler, the automobile parts industry and supply chain that all the other automakers with US production facilities require to stay in business, and all the jobs and wealth-production that would have been lost had those industries gone belly up, solely to keep the Volt alive.

And no, they're not converting the plant to make Impalas. They're retooling the Impala line that's already in the plant where they also make Volts for the new Impala model. As even the occasional reader of car magazines who's not afflicted with extreme confirmation bias knows, car companies shut down productions lines all the time when they need to do things like, say, retool a production line for a new model. They run up inventory from the plant to tide them over, then they shut the whole thing down.

Having your head full of so much nonsensical crazytalk all the time must be exhausting.

Oh, where to start. How about Steve, According to Forbes Treasury holds 500 million shares.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

For Khayyam, I'm going to accept the criticism that the Volt wasn't Obama's raison d'etre for nationalizing GM. it was actually a payback to the UAW. Your point about a dearth of private financing is true, and if Obama had stopped at providing DIP financing I could applaud it. However, Obama decided to contravene (he seems to do this a lot) established bankruptcy practice and handed over huge chunks of the company to the UAW while stiffing the secured bondholders. It was a move worthy of Chavez up to and including using the power of Govt to intimidate bondholders into submission.

Cartoon, I reread the article and didn't see anything saying the Volt would be produced again at that factory. Perhaps you could quote what I missed? The nationalization aspects are relevant to you as well.

Any questions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html

Damn, that link was supposed to go to Judy. Sorry folks.

Keep in mind, folks, that the person calling him/her/itself "Shooter242" is just a bratty troll who does not actually believe the bull@!$%# he/she/it shovels. It is best not to reply to his/her/its lies and distortions.

Yet, Gonzales was appointed Attorney General after Ashcroft, a man who did find a conscience. I did notice the article says while the President authorized changes to the program, "those changes were never made public." So, in effect, Ashcroft won the battle, but lost the war. But thanks for the article citation, Shooter242. It still doesn't show that President Obama has issued an "illegal" executive order.

judy, consider that Obama dismissed the core legal principle of Habeas Corpus. He executed an American citizen without due process. It's documented. I can say it's illegal and have concurring opinions from all over, but until a court says what he did is illegal, all opinions remain only that, opinions.

So, it will take another administration to decide what to sue over. Until then Obama as President can do no wrong.

If you really want to understand how GM and most of the Establishment in the auto sector regards govt mandated change, see the film documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Links:

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1222770969/

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

Benen was talking about reducing consumption of oil and gas, not production.

Higher production of oil reduces our reliance on foreign oil. Higher production of natural gas reduces the use of coal, as well as increasing exports. And of course, production of these is up, way up, under the Obama administration.

High-efficiency automobiles, solar and wind power, and whatever else we can do to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, increases our energy independence, whether or not we also increase our production of these same fuels.

And you can bet the Romney campaign would be singing a different tune if the Koch brothers owned wind and solar instead of oil and gas.

Yeah, I have a question: why do you keep harping on ND, when it's been shown to you over and over again that the ND success can't replicate elsewhere, and is actually bad news over the long term? Also, why do you fail repeatedly at reading comprehension? Were you a Child Left Behind?

PS. Natural gas is down to $2 per MCF at the wellhead but it is $10-12 for residential customers. Hard to know what you are picking for your $3 price in the US. Presumably your $21 price in Japan is for consumers, because the trade price peaked at $17. Please compare apples to apples.

Overseas export of natural gas obviously must involve liquefaction and shipping the LNG. Point being, you don't make anywhere near the 600% profit you imply.

Not saying we shouldn't export LNG. But to the extent we do, it raises prices in the US. Supply and demand.

Misleading. Natural gas doesn't reduce CO2 levels it merely outputs less CO2 than other versions. Saying it "reduces CO2" gives the misleading representation that somehow the number will magically go down. The number will go down over time if less is being put into the air, but this will not come about because the product itself deleted the existent amount of CO2 (rather this will come about as part of normal decay).

The United States cannot increase or decrease the amount of oil, natural gas, coal, or other energies that are produced. That is because we allow the private sector to make these decisions.

The US government can facilitate higher growth by doing things like purchasing vehicles that run on certain types of energy, subsidizing companies to produce things like oil pipelines, or expanding oil leases or coal leases. The government can also reduce regulations thereby allowing companies to take the initiative itself. However whether or not a company WILL produce more will be dependent on global markets. While the US is the highest consumer of oil we also are not the only consumer of oil. If production levels are satiated to the levels needed to meet demand then no new jobs will be created. Production will only go up if demand increases (supply and demand economics). US levels of production can only go up if the US government takes an active role in purchasing new vehicles or other means of artificially inflating the amount of gas being consumed. Otherwise those levels will be entirely dependent on what happens overseas. In which case the US would stand to make a net loss since the resources being taped on our soil would then be shipped overseas and not used here in the US. That would mean we'd be spending money on something that would then not be returned to the economy.

Shooter made this argument when stating that this is why it's justified to reduce the number of public employees. Interestingly enough Shooter does not realize that he has now invalidated his other earlier claims about the government picking winners and losers. By stating that the government should specifically get involved in natural gas (as opposed to other energies) and should do so aggressively by subsidizing these companies, building infrastructure for these companies, and artificially inflating sales for these companies the US government would be doing- wait for- the same thing it did with the GM bailout. Which Shooter literally derided only a few seconds ago.

Mike I'll be happy to use your figures on natgas. I'm just trying to impress people with the relative price differentials. The Koch brothers are rich because they stick to basics. T. Boone Pickens however likely lost a bunch of money on wind and solar, just like we the taxpayers.

T. Boone Pickens however likely lost a bunch of money on wind and solar, just like we the taxpayers.

Again- a hypothetical postulated as fact. I don't have proof that this thing I'm asserting to be true is in fact true. But I am asserting it to be true non-the-less and am then making assertions of policy on the basis NOT of reality, but on my fantasy.

The Koch brothers are rich because they were born rich and they haven't managed to squander it all buying politicians--yet.

The Koch brothers will lose a lot of money on this election. Come November 7th, they will finally understand the law of diminishing returns.

Oh, and T. Boone Pickens is focused on replacing oil with natural gas, using LNG in fleet vehicles, etc. Not so much on wind and solar.

Keep in mind, folks, that the person calling him/her/itself "Shooter242" is just a bratty troll who does not actually believe the bull@!$%# he/she/it shovels. It is best not to reply to his/her/its lies and distortions.

If the price of gasoline went down below $2/gallon, most US production of oil would stop. The whole reason oil production is UP in this country, is that the price of oil is high enough to justify producing domestic sources. It is not just OPEC that lowers production to keep demand tight.

So, you are correct that the price of gas won't go down. It will likely never go below $3 again. But if you get 50 mpg, you still pay half as much per mile than if you get 25 mpg.

I think it's more that he's all too human, and seeks the presidency not to serve the best interests of the country, but because someone has convinced him it's his "turn."

It's not likely Romney will win. Something dramatic would have to change for that to happen. The GOP is doing a bang up job though of trying to steal the vote through voter suppression and a continuous feed of boldface lies in the media. But odds makers have Romney at 7/4 and Obama at 2/5 (multiply fraction by the bet and that's what you win). So, I'm pretty confident Obama will win. Now, the senate is another problem. 23 dems and 10 reps are up for election which doesn't make for very good odds with the amount of SuperPAC money floating around. It's much easier and cheaper to buy a senate seat than a presidency. Going by memory, but I think 83% of the candidates who spent the most money, won. Figuring a worse case scenario where all the rep candidates spend more, that means 6 dems 27 reps will be final count being 1 vote shy of a super majority. With at least 3 DINOs and 2 independants and control of the house, they'll be able to ram through whatever they like, even if Obama vetoes it.

That last part I'm not so sure on. I think it depends on the type of legislation and where it originated where a 2/3rds vote will pass it anyway. I'm also unsure of the makeup of the house this election cycle. I've been a dem all my life, but never really had the disdain for reps that I've developed in the last 4 or so years. I hope we go "off the cliff" so everyone can pay in to fixing the country rather than just doing it off the backs of the middle and lower class (which can never work because the bottom 50 doesn't own anything).

No, it's you that doesn't understand the subject.

Romney wants to reverse the EPA's decision that CO2 is a tailpipe pollutant. That decision is what allows the Obama Administration to set fuel efficiency standards based on existing legislation--the Clean Air Act.

Other emissions like NOx, CO, lead, etc can be reduced with catalytic converters, changes to gasoline formulation, etc. CO2 is produced at a fixed ratio to the amount of gas burned. The only way to reduce CO2 per mile driven is to increase fuel efficiency.

Sorry, you're comnpletely incorrect .

Fuel efficency standards are set by the Department of Transportation under "voluntary agreement" among the government and automakers.

Tailpipe emissions are set by the EPA and are not voluntary in any sense.

"Sorry, you're comnpletely incorrect ."

Perhaps you should consider these:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration issued national light-duty greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards on April 1, 2010. The greenhouse gas standards apply to cars and light trucks, beginning with the 2012 model year. Manufacturers must meet standards for tailpipe methane and nitrous oxide emissions, plus increasingly stringent fleet average standards for carbon dioxide in each model year through 2016. The regulations provide flexibility to meet the standards by enabling manufacturers to generate emission credits which they may save for future years or sell to other manufacturers."

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

"EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, through reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improved fuel use from on-road vehicles and engines, from the smallest cars to the largest trucks."

" Let's also not forget the economic benefit -- when consumers need to purchase less gas, demand drops and prices go down, keeping more money in Americans' pockets."

Agreed, this is incorrect there's no relationship between emissions standards and pump prices.