Thursday, December 20, 2007
By Steven Milloy
“No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”
That comment by New York State Surrogate Court Judge Gideon Tucker in 1866 aptly summarizes the so-called “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” signed into law this week by President Bush.
First, the law requires auto fuel efficiency standards to increase by 40 percent by 2020. Unfortunately, this goal is presently only achievable by reducing vehicle weight — but lighter cars are deadlier cars. So what’s the purported benefit of mandating 4,000 or more deaths per year?
The law’s supporters claim that it may reduce national oil consumption by about 5 percent (400 million barrels of oil per year). Doing the math, your life is now worth about 100,000 barrels of oil. In touting the law, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “it is an environmental issue, and therefore a health issue… it is an energy issue, and it is a moral issue.”
But what exactly is the morality of risking thousands of lives every year to reduce oil consumption by an inconsequential amount?
The Energy Bill with a Body Count
Senate’s New Auto Fuel Standards Will Cost Lives
by CEI Staff
December 14, 2007
Washington, D.C., December 14, 2007—Yesterday the Senate passed an energy bill that would increase fuel economy regulations for cars and light trucks, making a program that already contributes to thousands of highway deaths a year even more deadly. The federal rules for new vehicles would force carmakers to downsize their new vehicles, making them less crashworthy in the case of an accident.
More.
President Signs Anti-Energy Bill
New Regulations Not Only Costly, But Deadly
by CEI Staff
December 19, 2007
Washington, D.C., December 19, 2007—Today President Bush signed a major new energy bill that will drive up costs to taxpayers and consumers and increase the severity of fuel efficiency rules for cars – rules that have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of passengers in the past.
“American families now face the prospect of paying more for food, gas, and vehicles,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Energy Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Under the guise of addressing our energy problems, the Congress and President have made them worse.”
More.
Man Bites Dog – CEI Congratulates EPA On Decision to Deny California Global Warming Scheme
It’s Global Warming, Not California Warming
by CEI Staff
December 20, 2007
Washington, D.C., December 20, 2007—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wednesday blocked a California law curtailing carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles, a decision drawing praise from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“By refusing to grant the waiver, EPA averted an economically devastating regulatory morass,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis.
More.
The Land of Unkept Climate Commitments
Yeatman Op-Ed in the Orange County Register
by William Yeatman
December 11, 2007
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon says that California “leads the world” on climate change. He’s right, but not the way he thinks. In fact, the Golden State leads the world in unfulfilled promises to fight global warming.
Consider the Los Angeles solar initiative. In 2000, L.A. announced it would become the “Solar Capital of the World,” with solar panels on 100,000 rooftops by 2010. To reach this ambitious target, the L.A. Department of Water and Power offered generous subsidies for solar energy systems. Three years and $80 million later – to outfit 600 rooftops at a cost of $13,000 each – the city cancelled the project as cost-ineffective, 99,400 buildings short of its goal.
And on the stupid people shouldn’t breed side of the house:
Global Warming Will Save America from the Right…Eventually
by Dave Lindorff
The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.
So what we see is that huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles.
Read the rest if you can stomach the vitriolic BS from this idiot.
Maybe if this administration weren’t being a douche about things we could get some of the restrictions on importing ethanol (from Brazil for example, where ethanol is made for a fraction of the cost) and we could get the market on ethanol production in the US to balance out. Wouldn’t that be using a true “free market” actually letting the market dictate what does and doesn’t work. Oh yeah, but Bush and his cronies only pull the “free market” card when it serves their goals.
Maybe instead of bitching about how we won’t have our personal cars anymore, we could do what most of the rest of the world does, embrace mass transit, do auto sharing through the use of cabs or shared rental, or heaven forbid America get off of its fat ass and walk or ride a bike. There are alternatives besides lighter cars that involve driving less, and being less dependent on how to compensate for a small [edit] with an SUV.
Wow. Where to start with that one.
First off, your beloved Bill (cigar) Clinton didn’t do anything for the environment either. Laying it at Bush’s feet is just plain stupid.
Which came first? Greenhouse gas, or global warming?
You think people cause global warming? You’re a very naive sot.
Best wishes.