TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Bush wanted HIGHER Cafe??

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by malcolm, Dec 19, 2007.

  1. malcolm

    malcolm Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,056
    According to White House briefing

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071218-2.html

    "Tomorrow we look forward to, hopefully, passing -- the President signing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That bill will be voted on for final passage in the House later today. In January, the President announced his 20-in-10 initiative, a comprehensive plan for a more secure, cleaner energy future, which would reduce our consumption of gasoline by 20 percent over 10 years. He has pushed Congress to pass this legislation all year. And the bill would increase fuel economy and expand the use of renewable fuels; it will save billions of gallons of fuel, expand our energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    While the President's alternative fuel standard and CAFE proposal would have gone farther and faster, we are pleased that Congress has worked together on a bipartisan way that provides the chance for the President to sign a bill that does not include tax increases."
     
  2. BlackbirdHighway

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    Maryland
    Well, Sort of...

    The "20-in-10" initiative that the President announced in the January 2007 State Of The Union speech was to reduce consumption of gasoline by 2017 to 10% below projected 2017 levels, not below 2007 levels. So what it reduces is really the level of increase. The reductions were to be made through alternative fuels and increased CAFE standards, and the proposal included increased incentives for oil production. ($100 a barrel is not incentive enough?)

    http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/02/01/bush-energy-oil-biz-cx_0202oxford.html
     
  3. TEG

    TEG TMC Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,173
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Reminds me of the way we sometimes hear about "deficit reduction" as apposed to "debt reduction".

    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
    "[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Q: [/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] What is the difference between the Debt and the Deficit? [/FONT]
    [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=+2]A: [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica] The National Debt is the total amount of money owed by the government; the federal budget deficit is the yearly amount by which spending exceeds revenue. Add up all the deficits (and subtract those few budget surpluses we've had) for the past 200+ years and you'll get the current National Debt.[/FONT] [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Politicians love to crow "The deficit is down! The deficit is down!" like it's a great accomplishment. Don't be fooled. Reducing the deficit just means we're adding less to the Debt this year than we did last year. Big deal -- we're still adding to the Debt. When are we going to start seeing the Debt actually go down?"[/FONT]

    history.gif
     
  4. BlackbirdHighway

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    Maryland
    It's actually worse than that, because then the politicians reduce the deficit in future years, relative to the projected deficit in the those years. So if it's 100 billion now, and expected to go to 200 billion in five years, but they "reduce" it in five years to only 180 billion, they call that a 20 billion reduction when it really went up 80 billion, and the debt just keeps increasing at an ever faster rate.
     

Share This Page