U.S. To Raise Average Car Mileage Standards On 2011 Models
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sue Chang MarketWatch Pulse
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Department of Transportation said Friday that it will raise the fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to an industry-wide average of 27.3 miles per gallon for 2011 models, up 2.0 mpg from 2010 models. The tighter rule will save about 887 million gallons of fuel and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons, the transportation department said. "These standards are important steps in the nation's quest to achieve energy independence and bring more fuel efficient vehicles to American families," said Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood in a statement.
© 2009 MarketWatch, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/raise-average-car-mileage-standards--models/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
While this is a noble goal, I wonder if this the best time to be putting restrictions on an industry that is can't keep their head above water without government assistance. It will cost the auto companies money to comply with the new standards, and for the Big 3, this is money that they don't have. It could very well backfire and be the final straw that will break Detroit's back.
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmentalism. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Economically Damaging Global Warming Congress Agenda Won’t Be Fast-Tracked Through Congress
Lawmaker: Global warming plan won't be in budget
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats won't advance President Obama's controversial global warming initiative under fast-track rules that could effectively cut Senate Republicans out of the debate, a top Democratic lawmaker said Tuesday.
The House will try to use special budget procedures to remake the health care system, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said Tuesday.
Such procedures are the only way to pass bills with a simple majority in the Senate. If they are used, Republicans would have a limited ability to influence the landmark legislation. The idea is continuing to meet resistance from Senate Democrats such as Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
The developments come on the eve of debate in the House and Senate budget committees as they take the first steps to pass Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan for the fiscal year starting in October.
Under Congress' arcane procedures, the annual congressional budget resolution is a nonbinding measure that sets the terms for follow-up legislation, sometimes including a filibuster-proof measure called a reconciliation bill.
The congressional budget plan also determines how much money to use for defense programs and domestic programs whose budgets are set each year by Congress, and it sets out the fiscal priorities of the governing party in Congress.
The panels are proposing cuts in Obama's 11 percent increase for non-defense agency budgets and will not fully reflect his proposal to permanently curb the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system that threatens some 24 million tax filers with higher taxes. Without such steps, they would be unable to cut the deficit to manageable levels.
Obama's plan to combat global warming would impose higher energy costs on consumers and businesses through a so-called "cap-and-trade" system for auctioning permits to emit greenhouse gases
Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had advocated passing the controversial cap-and-trade plan under a special bill that can speed through the Senate on a simple majority vote, instead of the 60 votes needed to move most other legislation. Democrats and their allies control 58 seats at present.
But many Democrats, even party loyalists such as Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, oppose the idea, as do many House moderates. Pelosi is being forced to abandon the idea in the face of so much opposition.
At issue is whether to advance controversial Obama initiatives under filibuster-proof rules in the Senate. Republicans say the maneuver would freeze them out of deliberations on such important topics, and Democrats like Conrad say it shouldn't be used for such complicated legislation. But the Democratic-dominated House wants to make sure Republicans don't hijack the legislation.
"Reconciliation is pretty well settled," Spratt said. "I think we'll have reconciliation (for) health care."
Also, neither budget assumes Obama's $250 billion set-aside for more bailouts of banks and other firms.
In the Senate, Conrad is proposing to cut Obama's $51 billion, 11 percent increase
for non-defense agency budgets to about 7 percent. That's a slightly smaller cut than he had earlier proposed.
But members of the appropriations panel say the cut is deceptively large since programs such as the decennial Census and the Federal Housing Administration need about $4 billion more each to stay on track. And emergency aid for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is proposed to cost $11 billion this year as an emergency expense, will be covered within next year's regular budget, further reducing what's available for non-defense programs like education.
On the alternative minimum tax, Spratt said the budget will not in later years incorporate Obama's assumption that the $30 billion-plus cost of fixing the AMT and instead assumes other revenues are raised to limit its reach. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure wealthy people pay at least some tax but now threatens to cost 24 million tax filers with increases averaging $2,000 or so a year.
Republicans continued their assault on the budget for its unprecedented levels of spending and for its dramatic increases in the national debt.
"We believe genuinely that it puts us on the path over 10 years for a very different kind of country, one with less freedom, one with more government, one with this extraordinary debt, and one which our children will have a very difficult time affording," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
© 2009 The Associated Press.
--------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_BUDGET?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
--------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
The Democrats must be feeling the heat. They are starting to buck some in their own constituency because of they are unpopular with most of America. They know that fast tracking something that is a huge change to the national agenda would be borderline unconstitutional and a big power play that would make the Democrats look like bullies.
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats won't advance President Obama's controversial global warming initiative under fast-track rules that could effectively cut Senate Republicans out of the debate, a top Democratic lawmaker said Tuesday.
The House will try to use special budget procedures to remake the health care system, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said Tuesday.
Such procedures are the only way to pass bills with a simple majority in the Senate. If they are used, Republicans would have a limited ability to influence the landmark legislation. The idea is continuing to meet resistance from Senate Democrats such as Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
The developments come on the eve of debate in the House and Senate budget committees as they take the first steps to pass Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan for the fiscal year starting in October.
Under Congress' arcane procedures, the annual congressional budget resolution is a nonbinding measure that sets the terms for follow-up legislation, sometimes including a filibuster-proof measure called a reconciliation bill.
The congressional budget plan also determines how much money to use for defense programs and domestic programs whose budgets are set each year by Congress, and it sets out the fiscal priorities of the governing party in Congress.
The panels are proposing cuts in Obama's 11 percent increase for non-defense agency budgets and will not fully reflect his proposal to permanently curb the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system that threatens some 24 million tax filers with higher taxes. Without such steps, they would be unable to cut the deficit to manageable levels.
Obama's plan to combat global warming would impose higher energy costs on consumers and businesses through a so-called "cap-and-trade" system for auctioning permits to emit greenhouse gases
Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California had advocated passing the controversial cap-and-trade plan under a special bill that can speed through the Senate on a simple majority vote, instead of the 60 votes needed to move most other legislation. Democrats and their allies control 58 seats at present.
But many Democrats, even party loyalists such as Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, oppose the idea, as do many House moderates. Pelosi is being forced to abandon the idea in the face of so much opposition.
At issue is whether to advance controversial Obama initiatives under filibuster-proof rules in the Senate. Republicans say the maneuver would freeze them out of deliberations on such important topics, and Democrats like Conrad say it shouldn't be used for such complicated legislation. But the Democratic-dominated House wants to make sure Republicans don't hijack the legislation.
"Reconciliation is pretty well settled," Spratt said. "I think we'll have reconciliation (for) health care."
Also, neither budget assumes Obama's $250 billion set-aside for more bailouts of banks and other firms.
In the Senate, Conrad is proposing to cut Obama's $51 billion, 11 percent increase
for non-defense agency budgets to about 7 percent. That's a slightly smaller cut than he had earlier proposed.
But members of the appropriations panel say the cut is deceptively large since programs such as the decennial Census and the Federal Housing Administration need about $4 billion more each to stay on track. And emergency aid for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is proposed to cost $11 billion this year as an emergency expense, will be covered within next year's regular budget, further reducing what's available for non-defense programs like education.
On the alternative minimum tax, Spratt said the budget will not in later years incorporate Obama's assumption that the $30 billion-plus cost of fixing the AMT and instead assumes other revenues are raised to limit its reach. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure wealthy people pay at least some tax but now threatens to cost 24 million tax filers with increases averaging $2,000 or so a year.
Republicans continued their assault on the budget for its unprecedented levels of spending and for its dramatic increases in the national debt.
"We believe genuinely that it puts us on the path over 10 years for a very different kind of country, one with less freedom, one with more government, one with this extraordinary debt, and one which our children will have a very difficult time affording," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
© 2009 The Associated Press.
--------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_BUDGET?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
--------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
The Democrats must be feeling the heat. They are starting to buck some in their own constituency because of they are unpopular with most of America. They know that fast tracking something that is a huge change to the national agenda would be borderline unconstitutional and a big power play that would make the Democrats look like bullies.
California's Green Agenda Being Pushed Through Despite Falling Economy
State considers ban on big screen TVs
March 23rd, 2009, 3:00 am
posted by BRIAN JOSEPH
Sacramento Correspondent
In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV
Couch potatoes, beware.
The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.
“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.
Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.
Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.
“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.
Poppycock, says the commission.
Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.
The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.
“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money,” Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb said the commission is exploring the regulations to reduce the strain on the energy grid and to avoid building new power plants.
Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.
“Consumers aren’t aware of the hidden cost of powering these things,” Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb insisted that the regulations wouldn’t eliminate big screens from California stores. But the commission’s own draft report says TV energy use is “proportional to the screen size.” And there’s no doubt the regulations will limit energy use.
So if you’re in the market for big screen TV, now might be the time to buy. The regulations are expected to be approved this summer.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is just what this country needs. The new regulations will decrease the sales of the TVs. This in turn will lead to layoffs all the way from the TV manufacturing plants to electronics stores. Unemployment will go even higher with the added layoffs.
Couldn't they wait until we get the economy back on track before putting these kind of unneeded limitations on our businesses?
March 23rd, 2009, 3:00 am
posted by BRIAN JOSEPH
Sacramento Correspondent
In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV
Couch potatoes, beware.
The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.
“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.
Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.
Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.
“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.
Poppycock, says the commission.
Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.
The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.
“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like to save money,” Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb said the commission is exploring the regulations to reduce the strain on the energy grid and to avoid building new power plants.
Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.
“Consumers aren’t aware of the hidden cost of powering these things,” Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb insisted that the regulations wouldn’t eliminate big screens from California stores. But the commission’s own draft report says TV energy use is “proportional to the screen size.” And there’s no doubt the regulations will limit energy use.
So if you’re in the market for big screen TV, now might be the time to buy. The regulations are expected to be approved this summer.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/
-----------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is just what this country needs. The new regulations will decrease the sales of the TVs. This in turn will lead to layoffs all the way from the TV manufacturing plants to electronics stores. Unemployment will go even higher with the added layoffs.
Couldn't they wait until we get the economy back on track before putting these kind of unneeded limitations on our businesses?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Are Private Jet Sales Green?
Stimulus Includes Tax Break to Promote Private Jet Sales
Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approves incentives to help plane makers by reducing the tax bill of companies that buy assets like business planes.
AP
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.
The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.
The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.
"This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita.
Roughly 11,000 jobs have been cut in the last three months by the 65 or so member companies of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, an industry trade group.
The industry needs a stronger economy, not a tax break, to recover, according to aviation consultant Richard Aboulafia with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.
"People and companies buy jets when they need new planes and feel good about the economy," he said. "If they don't feel good about things, a tax break isn't going to help."
Officials from industry trade groups disagree, saying a tax break will spur purchases, and give sales teams another tool to keep customers from canceling orders.
Many economists believe the current recession will last until at least the end of this year and may extend into 2010.
"It's trying to give you a reason to act now, rather than sit on the sidelines for the next two years," said CEO Ed Bolen of the National Business Aviation Association, a trade group that represents general aviation interests of 8,000 companies.
The incentive -- known as accelerated depreciation -- lets companies take a larger deduction in the early years of the life of an asset such as a plane.
Companies will have to place orders by the end of 2009, and those planes will need to be delivered by the end of 2010 to take advantage of the tax benefit.
First used in the months following 9/11, an industry study found accelerated depreciation helped boost sales by 43 percent, and later contributed an additional $2 billion in sales when implemented again in 2003.
Even with its previous success, both industry officials and lawmakers concede the incentive is by no means a cure-all during one of the worst recessions seen in decades.
"It's not a silver bullet as a stand-alone effort," said Tiahrt. "(But) this will certainly be helpful. This will sell aircraft that we wouldn't have sold before."
The industry was able to convince lawmakers to remove a provision in an early draft of the stimulus bill that would have prohibited banks that receive bailout money from buying or leasing private aircraft.
The provision grew out of scorn for leaders of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, who flew to Washington on private jets in November to ask Congress for $25 billion in taxpayer money.
Two of the largest makers of general-aviation aircraft -- Cessna, a unit of Providence, R.I.-based Textron and Hawker Beechcraft -- have also launched advertising campaigns to tell business executives to ignore criticism and keep buying planes.
It's too soon to know whether those appeals to corporate ego will work. For now, the main response of many general-aviation companies has been to cut jobs, hunker down and hope the recession doesn't drag on.
Teal Group's Aboulafia said companies must cut costs while continuing to push ahead with development of new planes and parts that will drive growth once the economy rebounds.
Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver, who said the company reduced its 2009 delivery forecast for jets to 375 from 535, thinks the tax break will help.
"It is a big deal," he said, adding that it helped pull the industry out of the post-9/11 slump that lasted into 2003. Oliver said cutting prices is not the answer for private-plane manufacturers.
"Planemakers don't like to discount pricing because it cheapens the value of planes they already sold," he said. "You are not going to see deep discounting on business jets, but we still negotiate with customers."
Piper Aircraft Inc. just cut 300 jobs but is pushing ahead with plans to unveil a $2.2 million jet model by the end of 2011.
Mark Miller, a spokesman for Piper, said orders for the jet have held at more than 200, while cancelations spiked in the last two weeks of January for its current lineup of prop planes.
Vero Beach, Fla.-based Piper, whose planes start around $200,000, recently cut its forecast for 2009 deliveries to 110 from 135. That was down further from a September projection of 236 deliveries.
Miller said the accelerated depreciation of aircraft "is promising," but sales would be helped more if banks lend more for aircraft purchases. Some experts say banks that previously demanded only 5 or 10 percent down on a plane now insist on 20 to 30 percent.
"Our customers are small business owners and professionals like lawyers," Miller said. "They're recession-resistant, but they're not recession-proof."
------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sales/
------------------------------
My Thoughts
Not only is it odd that they choose to add this after they chastise the 3 little pigs of Detroit for coming to Washington in jets, but it's also odd that Obama and the Democrats claimed to want to create green jobs with the "porkulus" bill.
I'm just sayin.
Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approves incentives to help plane makers by reducing the tax bill of companies that buy assets like business planes.
AP
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.
The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.
The aviation industry, which is cutting jobs as it suffers from declining shipments and canceled orders, hopes the tax break in the economic-stimulus bill just signed by President Barack Obama will persuade more companies to buy planes and snap a slump in general aviation that began last year.
"This is exactly the type of financial incentive that should be included in a stimulus bill," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., in an interview. His state lost at least 6,900 jobs at Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft, both based in Wichita.
Roughly 11,000 jobs have been cut in the last three months by the 65 or so member companies of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, an industry trade group.
The industry needs a stronger economy, not a tax break, to recover, according to aviation consultant Richard Aboulafia with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.
"People and companies buy jets when they need new planes and feel good about the economy," he said. "If they don't feel good about things, a tax break isn't going to help."
Officials from industry trade groups disagree, saying a tax break will spur purchases, and give sales teams another tool to keep customers from canceling orders.
Many economists believe the current recession will last until at least the end of this year and may extend into 2010.
"It's trying to give you a reason to act now, rather than sit on the sidelines for the next two years," said CEO Ed Bolen of the National Business Aviation Association, a trade group that represents general aviation interests of 8,000 companies.
The incentive -- known as accelerated depreciation -- lets companies take a larger deduction in the early years of the life of an asset such as a plane.
Companies will have to place orders by the end of 2009, and those planes will need to be delivered by the end of 2010 to take advantage of the tax benefit.
First used in the months following 9/11, an industry study found accelerated depreciation helped boost sales by 43 percent, and later contributed an additional $2 billion in sales when implemented again in 2003.
Even with its previous success, both industry officials and lawmakers concede the incentive is by no means a cure-all during one of the worst recessions seen in decades.
"It's not a silver bullet as a stand-alone effort," said Tiahrt. "(But) this will certainly be helpful. This will sell aircraft that we wouldn't have sold before."
The industry was able to convince lawmakers to remove a provision in an early draft of the stimulus bill that would have prohibited banks that receive bailout money from buying or leasing private aircraft.
The provision grew out of scorn for leaders of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, who flew to Washington on private jets in November to ask Congress for $25 billion in taxpayer money.
Two of the largest makers of general-aviation aircraft -- Cessna, a unit of Providence, R.I.-based Textron and Hawker Beechcraft -- have also launched advertising campaigns to tell business executives to ignore criticism and keep buying planes.
It's too soon to know whether those appeals to corporate ego will work. For now, the main response of many general-aviation companies has been to cut jobs, hunker down and hope the recession doesn't drag on.
Teal Group's Aboulafia said companies must cut costs while continuing to push ahead with development of new planes and parts that will drive growth once the economy rebounds.
Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver, who said the company reduced its 2009 delivery forecast for jets to 375 from 535, thinks the tax break will help.
"It is a big deal," he said, adding that it helped pull the industry out of the post-9/11 slump that lasted into 2003. Oliver said cutting prices is not the answer for private-plane manufacturers.
"Planemakers don't like to discount pricing because it cheapens the value of planes they already sold," he said. "You are not going to see deep discounting on business jets, but we still negotiate with customers."
Piper Aircraft Inc. just cut 300 jobs but is pushing ahead with plans to unveil a $2.2 million jet model by the end of 2011.
Mark Miller, a spokesman for Piper, said orders for the jet have held at more than 200, while cancelations spiked in the last two weeks of January for its current lineup of prop planes.
Vero Beach, Fla.-based Piper, whose planes start around $200,000, recently cut its forecast for 2009 deliveries to 110 from 135. That was down further from a September projection of 236 deliveries.
Miller said the accelerated depreciation of aircraft "is promising," but sales would be helped more if banks lend more for aircraft purchases. Some experts say banks that previously demanded only 5 or 10 percent down on a plane now insist on 20 to 30 percent.
"Our customers are small business owners and professionals like lawyers," Miller said. "They're recession-resistant, but they're not recession-proof."
------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/stimulus-includes-tax-break-promote-private-jet-sales/
------------------------------
My Thoughts
Not only is it odd that they choose to add this after they chastise the 3 little pigs of Detroit for coming to Washington in jets, but it's also odd that Obama and the Democrats claimed to want to create green jobs with the "porkulus" bill.
I'm just sayin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)