National fuel standards not worthy of asking about?

Good point…but, Clinton didn’t see the cost of gas go up by 3x…or take up such a massive share of the bottom 20-40% of society’s pocket book. Bush did. :)

And it wasn’t in the 1990’s, it was in early 2000, that we saw China explode in oil consumption so massively, which compounded the effects.

So I blame both Bush and Clinton for doing nothing :) However, Bush was the worst of the two on fuel standards…made more so by the close ties with the industry.

It was because bush/cheney were, and still are, in the pockets of the oil industry and the saudis. But clinton did little about it either.

Remember all those secret Cheney whitehouse meetings with oil industry execs when they first stole the presidency, that resulted in the bush energy policy. I have no doubts that improving fuel standards was not on their agenda.

good point fillet.

Your right about clinton not seeing fuel prices skyrocket, but he still should have done more. The economy was going great and no one wanted to rock the boat. Had we done something then, we would be a lot further along the road to energy independence. But then again, Bush and Cheney probably would have dismantled any programs that were implemented. Look what reagan did to Jimmy Carter’s solar energy plan. He proposed sweeping changes in enrgy poicies, including having 2.5 million homes with solar panels by 1985. Carter even had solar panels installed on the white house. But of course the oil-friendly reagan, scrapped all the solar energy initiatives, and took down the solar panels from the white house. Think of where we would be today if it weren’t for reagan.

In addition, look what was done to our wind power companies. Supplied with no funding they were eventually sold to foreign owners. As far as I am concerned, we have had no president concerned with and progressive enough to understand the need for alternative energy sources since Carter. His plan… These are the goals we set for 1985: Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent. Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level. Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day. Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months’ supply. Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year. Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings. Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

Wow, 1985…we would be so far ahead of the game…

After the Arab Oil embargo of the 1970’s Eurpoeans responded by raising gasoline taxes to encourage conservation. Jimmy Carter enacted CAFE standards to improve fuel economy of our cars.

The high gasoline taxes in Europe and the CAFE standard generally worked. In the US the average car milege per gallon doubled and for light trucks improved significantly. Reduced demand for oil weakened OPEC and helped bring down the Soviet Union (2nd largest producer or petroleum) in 1985 President Reagan reduced the standard from 27.5 to 26 MPG where ir remained ever since. Had we stuck with President Carter’s CAFE standards we were due to have average fleet millege of 48 MPG by 1995. This was certainly doable with our technology though cars would be smaller and less powerful than they are today.

Today we import more of our energy than we did in the 1970’s. Instead of progress we have backslid.

My solution would be different though. I think a straight carbon tax would be the best approach. 1 gallon of gasoline has 5.5 lbs of carbon. Common 90% gasoline with 10% alcohol would be aroudn 5 lbs. Tax the carbon. This would both discourage imports while encouraging domestic sustainable carbon neutral energy production.

“I think it was because maybe they didn’t understand that pollution from cars was pretty bad, and there were so many votes coming from the Big Three, that if you actually forced them to pass the fuel standards, it would’ve hurt them at the time. So they passed the fuel standards to appear like they cared, but then gave the Big Three all a pass on actually implementing them.”

ummm…what?

I think it was because maybe they didn’t understand that pollution from cars was pretty bad, and there were so many votes coming from the Big Three, that if you actually forced them to pass the fuel standards, it would’ve hurt them at the time. So they passed the fuel standards to appear like they cared, but then gave the Big Three all a pass on actually implementing them.

Congressman Ron Paul just introduced a bill for fuel efficient cars.

—Press Release— Congressman Paul Introduces Bill for Fuel Efficient Cars

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul is urging his colleagues in congress to cosponsor his legislation HR 1768 the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act.

This legislation would help Americans spend less on gas and reduce pollution by providing a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least 20% higher average fuel economy than their previous vehicle. It also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase or the more fuel-efficient automobile, and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient vehicle tax deductible.

“Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices,” Congressman Paul stated in a letter to his congressional colleagues.

Congressman Paul has frequently made the case for the free market and private property rights in protecting the environment, and has signed the Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” Pledge. This pledge states that “climate change legislation should not be used as a guise to fund a massive increase in the size and scope of government…” and reaffirms Congressman Paul’s promise to vote against any legislation related to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.