Can Congress fight foreign oil dependence and save Detroit?
Is foreign oil dependence a meaningless buzz phrase?So, Nancy Pelosi is going to lead a Congressional caucus to the North American International Auto Show to see how Detroit's new automotive products are shaping up and to listen to ideas from Michigan's elected leaders.
Considering that Congress has invested at least $81 billion in the US auto industry, such a trip seems necessary.
And, without doubt, there will certinaly be photo ops with various plug-in vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt, and sound bites of how such vehicles are going to save Michigan and America, despite the fact that numerous studies claim such vehicles will have little impact on foreign oil dependency or CO2 emissions for decades. Nonetheless, I'm sure the trip will make for great PR.
Moreover, I'm sure there will be some references to new CAFE rules and how they've led to a plethora of new American small cars. Shoot, by 2020 the US auto industry's fleet fuel economy might even match our competitor's fleet fuel economy - well, at least what their fleet fuel economy is today.
Inevitably, however, America will still be heavily dependent upon foreign oil. In fact, based on most data available, the US will be heavily dependent upon dirty foreign oil for several more decades, minimally, barring any new, aggressive change in Congressional policy.
Thus, I must ask, can Congress aggressively and swiftly fight foreign oil dependence and save the US auto industry, while not bankrupting the US economy nor increasing CO2 emissions? Is such a task simply impossible, or is it Congress that is the problem?
Labels: Foreign Oil Dependency, fuel economy
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:37 AM
21 Comments:
What is most frustrating is the lack of emphasis on "off the shelf" solutions to reduce foreign oil usage.
Diesel and CNG are proven solutions that exist today and do not cost $5000 more than a gasoline counterpart.
Why do these solutions, which ar e now mainstream outside the US, continue to be non-existent inside the US?
If Nancy really wants to help fight foreign oil dependence, she should stay home and ride a bike or take mass transit to work.
I agree with both comments so far, and both seem to suggest that Congress is the problem.
well, let's see.. Nancy is the fault of the health care debacle - right? so if Nancy tried to do something to get us off of foreign oil - do you think the same folks who don't like her now - will change their minds ?
or will they hate her even more?
....just asking....
Personally I think Pelosi has done a horrible job with health care, but not because I'm against fixing the system.
But I'm not blaming Pelosi anymore than I am blaming john mccain on foreign oil dependency. I'm blaming Congress as a whole.
The maintance of power drives the US Congress.
Congress shouldn't be a career, it should be a platform for new ideas all driven by benefitting the greater good, rather than the greedy, self-serving special interests that control Congress.
so... if Congress/Pelosi said they wanted to do something about our dependence on foreign oil - what actions would you support her to do?
I think people are basically schizoid ... they want something done.. they blame Congress for not doing anything...but if Congress actually tries to do something then they get blamed anyhow.
There was absolutely NOBODY in the Bush administration NOR the Republicans in Congress that would have done anything at all to deal with our dependence on foreign oil - except to drill more oil on our own shores.
So I ask.. what would we want Congress to do to deal with the dependence on foreign oil?
bonus question - once you give your answer - then say which of the two parties - Dem or Republican is more likely to do what you think should be done.
... just trying to keep folks honest here...
Larry,
You just explained why I turned in my Republican voter registration card.
It was painfully obvious that not only did the Republicans, and especially Bush, not do anything to reduce our dependency on oil, Republicans actually did things to "increase" our dependence on foreign oil.
It was a Republican congress that created the "SUV loophole" that allowed small business to write off up $100,000 towards the cost of a large SUV. This is why doctors and lawyers now drive Cadillac Escalades, and Hummers to go pickup their mocha latte's at Starbucks.
It was a Republican congress that repealed the 5 cents per gallon gasoline tax as part of the "contact on America".
It was a Republican President who was filmed holding hands with the King od Saudi Arabia.
Let there be no doubt..... Republicans can and will not solve our foreign oil independence problem.
" Let there be no doubt..... Republicans can and will not solve our foreign oil independence problem."
Congrats but consider this - if the Dems and/or Pelosi _try_ to do something - they ... WILL be demonized - right?
so this is what I mean.
and this is why I asked ...what we would have them do that would gain support instead of ridicule?
True.
At least with Dems we have a shot.
With Republicans we have "absolutly no chance of making any progress" on foreign oil independence.
This post has been removed by the author.
What could the Democrats do and not be demonized?
Tax credits and incentives for Diesel and CNG?
How about money for increased CNG infrastructure?
I still think Tax credits for hybrids (not plug-ins), without a cap of 60,000 per manufacturer, is also a good idea that should not get too much scrutiny.
I'm afraid that things are so polarized and partisan right now that _anything_ that Nancy Pelosi supports that the opponents will claim that it shows that she is a mother-loving socialist trying to screw over the American people.
Kapische?
For better or worse - I think the only way we're going to move forward is through things that can gain some level of bi-partisan support.
Otherwise.. the Glen Becks are going to be claiming that it's a government "plot" to force people to give up their existing cars.... or some such...
sorry to be such a buzzkiller... here...
All of this back-and-forth bantering about the politics of oil dependency has become, at least, redundant and, at worst, irrelevant.
I'm sure you good people out there know what's going on with the existing oil fields, the lack of discovering new petrol sources, and the IEA's manipulation of data and press releases to appease the American oil markets.
You see, it just doesn't matter. In ten, maybe twelve years, cheap oil will be gone, and once gas hits $12-15 a gallon (and sometime before, for sure), people will have to turn to alternative fuels, electric transportation, and like, to assume even a measure of our past lifestyles. The simply won't be able to afford to change. And if they don't change, they will perish.
It won't be easy, it won't be cheap, and it sure as heck won't be pretty to watch. So, keep on sniping about Pelosi and Beck and all the others. All the politics and hot air on this subject is soon to be moot.
Because in about a decade, IT JUST AIN'T GONNA MATTER.
larry-
i'm not saying Congressional greatness is easy, but not striving for it guarantees it won't be achieved.
since watergate, congressional incumbency has been nearly 90 percent. yet, congress could get along just fine without any of the incumbents - even all of them.
that's supposed to be the beauty of congress.
if we don't ever rock the boat, if you don't every jump outside of the box, can anything really ever change?
finally, in terms of your dem/republican question.
i have no faith in either party, but i disagree with smurf that republicans couldn't be the driver of change.
many republican voters, unlike the republican party machine, are strongly interested in foreign oil dependency.
these voters, i believe, could be convinced by a republican that "drilling for oil" might actually be counter-productive to the war on foreign oil dependency.
once you get over that hump, i think you have a whole new ball game.
Dahc - I'm of the belief that as long as Congress is elected that the folks that elect them will talk-the-talk about "green" and reducing foreign oil dependency - until it hits them in the pocketbook - at the gas pump and the cost of a new car.
Poll after poll, confirms this. People like the idea of Green and less foreign oil dependence as long as it's done in such a way that they do not end up paying higher prices.
What I seem to hear a lot these days is
1. that people don't like what Congress does - true - but then as a group who don't like Congress - that group cannot agree among themselves what needs to be done either.
Some of them will want tax breaks for "green" while others will want tax breaks for more offshore oil drilling - opposite of each and in opposition to the current Congress path also.
so - they are not unified in the direction they want the country to go in - but rather divided.
and 2. - they want Congress to do what is "right" (in their view) even if other voters don't like it - to do what is "good" for the country even if in doing so, they get thrown out of office at the next election.
sometimes 2. might happen on an individual basis - one or two or three guys/gals but not the whole Congress.
Congress folks are like everyone else. They have a job, they want to keep their job so they do what is necessary to keep their job and that means - at the least - not going in the opposite direction of what their constituents expect of them.
The whole deal is enormously frustrating to a lot of people. They know longer feel that our system of governance really "works" but it does - just very slowly and very imperfectly.
I just don't know what kind of governance that we could have works any better... other countries have similar or even worse problem with their governments doing the right thing.
i don't really disagree with your points larry, except calling Congress a job.
i don't believe most in congress are doing their job, most are maintaining their power. as soon as a congressional election is over the first order of business is beginning the fund-raising for the next campaign.
again, i don't believe congress should be a career.
nevertheless, without real leadership in Congress, proactive change is virtually impossible - barring any massive voter turnout against incumbents.
I'm not sure there is any way to "turn-over" a completely new Congress, get rid of all incumbents with one fell swoop and even if you could, I don't think the results would be very good because believe it or not - writing good legislation that actually does what it is intended to do - is not for beginners.
Money does infest the process and if I had my way - no money could come from any corporations - only individuals but others have told me that they believe this violates "free speech".
but corporations also can use their money to buy "issue" ADs which I'm sure you're familiar with as there have been hundreds run on the current health care legislation.
It overwhelms the average person. They hear convincing arguments then the next AD is just as convincing in the opposite direction - and they just don't have the resources to figure out the competing arguments.
some groups were making a big deal that some of the current controversial legislation was over 1000 pages ...
and that's true - but a LOT of legislation has that many pages. It always did - but the average person never really knew it because they never really would read the legislation to start with.
and reading legislation - for the average person - is that not going to be a very useful exercise unless you have the background and experience to read and understand it and the truth is that not even some Congressman know - they depend on career staffers - people who have been writing legislation for 10, 20, or 30 years or more - and even if you term limit Congress - these staffers will still be around writing legislation.
We need to acknowledge that the reason we're not moving forward is not because legislation can't get written. It can. A ton of it.
The reason we cannot move forward is that 1/2 the Congress does not agree with the other 1/2 and if you look at the polls - the voters are split along the same lines.
For every guy that thinks we need to have tax credits for Hybrids - there's another guy who is vociferously opposed.
For every guy who thinks we need to raise the gas tax - there is another guy - A Congressman whose constituents are totally opposed to the idea and so he won't vote for it.
I think the country itself is split and that fact is reflected in a Congress that is split.
Even if you took all these guys out and replaced them - you'd still end up with this split - if those new ones actually represented the views of those that elected them.
I'm as frustrated or more so than others but from a pragmatic view - we cannot turn the country into a dictatorship either...
Our system sucks at times - but the really stinky part is that as bad as it is - it's better than most other systems in the world.
"You see, it just doesn't matter. In ten, maybe twelve years, cheap oil will be gone,"
I would prefer we take care of this problem before the oil begins to run out, rather than after....
2008 should have been a wake up call. Unfotunately, most Americans only see it as spike....another bubble, in the decade of bubbles....
"many republican voters, unlike the republican party machine, are strongly interested in foreign oil dependency. "
The conservative "purification" of the Republican party is working to get rid of any Republicans politicians that supoort these views.
Pretty soon those Republican voters you speak of won't have anyone to vote for...
This is why I left the Republican party....
smurf-
i'm just saying its possible. i don't expect it. of course, the candidate would have to be independently wealthy to fight off the political machines as well.
larry-
there is a lot of consensus about foreign oil dependency in America, for instance. certainly, there is some disagreement about solutions, but there is tremendous room for timely and effective compromise - a compromise that would be good for the people by every measure, and it could be based off pragmatic science.
but that's not the goal of our political system.
i'll take an anti-incumbent coup over such a political system any election, especially considering only 1/3 of the Senate can be voted out at any one election.
Post a Comment
<< Home