THE PROGRESS REPORT
by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, and Christy Harvey
August 25, 2005
ENERGY
Administration Fuels High Prices
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Bolton Already Obstructing Reform
UNDER THE RADAR
Go Beyond The Headlines
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up | Contact us | Permalinks/Archive | Mobile | RSS | Print
ENERGY
Administration Fuels High Prices
Yesterday, with gas over $3 a gallon in many areas of the country, the Bush administration unveiled new fuel efficiency standards. The administration proposal squanders an opportunity to reduce demand for fuel - and actually encourages automakers to produce bigger, more fuel inefficient vehicles. Worse, the rules secretly undermine state efforts to do better. California recently approved a plan that "will require a 30 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks by 2016, a target that will most likely be met by big increases in fuel efficiency." The approach is gaining popularity and "George Pataki of New York and other Eastern governors have pledged to emulate it." But buried on page 150 of the regulations is this provision: "[A] state may not impose a legal requirement relating to fuel economy, whether by statute, regulation or otherwise, that conflicts with this rule. A state law that seeks to reduce motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions is both expressly and impliedly preempted." In other words, the Bush administration has indicated it is determined to undercut California and all other states seeking to improve the administration's feeble proposal. If the administration is successful we will all pay the price.
ADMINISTRATION THWARTS BILLIONS IN FUEL SAVINGS: The California plan "would save far more at the pump for the state's residents than the White House plan." The plan would deliver Californians "annual net gas savings of more than $1 billion by early next decade." (States like New York, that were expected to adopt similar proposals could have expected similar savings.) In all likelihood, that projection significantly understates the actual savings. It's based on "low projections for gas prices" -- around $1.50 a gallon -- that "woefully understate the potential benefits of fuel efficiency."
NEW FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF INEFFICIENT VEHICLES: For the past 30 years "fuel economy regulations have divided each automaker's annual production into two categories, cars and light duty trucks." The new Bush administration regulations "would divide the current light truck fleet [including SUVs] into six classes, with each class being determined by wheelbase (length) and track width (width)." (The largest vehicles -- like the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, and some models of the Chevy Suburban -- remain completely exempt.) That system "encourages automakers to build larger vehicles in order to qualify for weaker fuel economy standards, resulting in lower fleet wide fuel economy." Thus, even the extraordinarily modest fuel savings that the administration predicts -- 10 billion gallons of gas savings over nearly two decades (less than a month's supply) -- is purely speculative. For example "Ford could add less than an inch to the dimensions of its Explorer Sport Trac and move it from a class with a fuel target of 24.5 m.p.g. to one with 23.3 in 2011 models." Automakers have shown a willingness to game the system in the past: "When the current regulatory system was created three decades ago, 80 percent of the vehicles automakers produced were cars. Today, more than half are light trucks, partly a result of the category's lesser fuel requirements."
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY COULD CREATE REAL SAVINGS: The administration proposal "would raise the fuel economy standards for light trucks - a vehicle category which includes pickup trucks and SUVs - by a trivial 1.8 miles per gallon over the 2008 to 2011 vehicle model years." We can do much, much better. According to the Sierra Club "technology exists today to make all vehicles average 40 miles per gallon fleet wide within ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver $2,200 in fuel savings over the lifetime of their vehicle." Alternatively, a simple, attainable proposal to close the gap in fuel standards between cars and light trucks would "cut fuel costs for truck buyers by at least 25 percent, equivalent to reducing gasoline prices to below $2.00 per gallon from today’s record high of more than $2.60."
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Bolton Already Obstructing Reform
It hasn't taken John Bolton long to undermine U.N. reform efforts. Weeks before world leaders from 170 countries are to gather in New York to discuss "the most sweeping changes at the United Nations in its 60-year history," the U.S. delegation led by Bolton has "thrown the proceedings in turmoil" with demands for a "drastic renegotiation" of the draft reform plan. Never mind that the current document is the result of "nearly a year of intensive negotiations" in which the United States "has been a regular participant" and so "has had a major impact on the document to date." Bolton has decided to introduce at the last minute more than 750 amendments that would "eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations [and] scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms." Bolton was sent to the UN not to reform it, but to weaken it, and he’s already hard at work.
SENDING REFORM BACK TO STEP ONE: Bolton has also suggested that one option "would be to return to square one and launch line-by-line negotiations on the document." With diplomats warning that the "most determining factor is shortage of time" between now and September's summit, this strategy is a clear effort to throw a wrench in the gears of U.N. reform. A top U.N. General Assembly today warns of just that: "[T]he big risk now is that [other countries] will see this big shopping list as an opportunity to return with their own shopping lists and then the whole thing may unravel." It seems that Bolton’s real motive is to turn the September world summit into a fiasco, either by making sure that nothing is agreed to, or that the consensus document is devoid of any significant reform.
THE WAR ON THE WAR ON POVERTY: As President Bush has pointed out, "Persistent poverty and oppression can lead to hopelessness and despair. And when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror." Yet John Bolton wants to eliminate most of the portions of the draft document that address alleviating global poverty. His amendments "call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long." Moreover, Bolton has told foreign delegates that he is concerned "about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries."
FOR BOLTON, SIZE MATTERS: The Bush administration's true commitment to U.N. reform can also be judged by the importance it has placed on the draft document's length. The administration's official response to the draft, released earlier this month, includes sentences such as "the document is too long and not worded in a manner that heads of state normally agree to or endorse," "The development section is over 15 pages long," and "the section on security...focuses far too much on disarmament rather than nonproliferation; it is also too long." In recent days, John Bolton has suggested "that the entire document could be scrapped and replaced with a brief statement," or at most "a punchier three-page version." How in the world do you construct a more dynamic and effective U.N. with a three page document? The fact is you don’t.
BOLTON OPPOSES TOUGH POSITION AGAINST GENOCIDE: Apparently the Bush administration hasn't learned the lessons taught by the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, during which the international community failed to intervene effectively in cases of mass human rights violations. The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration "opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing." (American Progress feels differently, and has launched the Responsibility to Protect program to present our case.)
Under the Radar
LEGION DECLARES WAR ON ANTIWAR: The American Legion, a veterans’ organization with 2.7 million members, has “declared war” on antiwar protestors, Editor and Publisher reports. During remarks at the group’s national convention in Honolulu, the Legion’s commander Thomas Cadmus called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war, even though they are protected by the Bill of Rights. “The American Legion,” he said, “will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples.” The delegates at the convention then voted to use whatever means necessary to “ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.”
ENERGY -- HIGHER COST OF GAS MEANS TAXPAYERS PAYING MORE TO TRANSPORT BUSH: Rising gas prices means that it costs more to transport President Bush and his staff. Unlike most Americans, Bush doesn't have to foot the bill. "Almost every vehicle Bush uses is custom-made to add security and communications capabilities, and the heavier weight of these guzzlers further drives up gas and jet fuel costs." The White House refused a request for comment on the overall effect of higher fuel prices on its budget. While Bush may not have much say over the types of transportation his entourage uses, Bush drives a Ford F250 pickup truck on his ranch in Crawford that requires approximately $75 to fill the tank. The AP writes, "Reducing his appearances outside the White House and making other gestures toward fuel conservation could help cut down on costs."
NATIONAL SECURITY -- CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION PROVIDES VALUABLE GLIMPSE INTO SMEAR TACTICS OF WHITE HOUSE: The Los Angeles Times reports that the information which has become public to date through the investigation of the Valerie Plame outing reveals a White House that is adept at smearing its critics. "Beyond the whodunit, the affair raises questions about the credibility of the Bush White House, the tactics it employs against political opponents and the justification it used for going to war." Meanwhile, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin continues to reinvent facts in an effort to defend his client. "The one thing that's absolutely clear is that Karl was not the source for the leak and there's no basis for any additional speculation," Luskin said. Recall this is the same Luskin who said Rove "did not disclose any confidential information about anybody to [Time reporter Matt] Cooper" and that Rove had testified "absolutely truthfully" about all his conversations with reporters about Plame.
BAD NEWS FOR THE HOUSING BOOM: The New York Times reported this morning that rents are again rising across the country—an indication that the housing boom could be reaching its peak. According to Global Real Analytics, a research company in San Francisco, rents in about 85% of large metropolitan areas climbed last year. With mortgage rates growing, the rise in rent is a sign that people are increasingly looking to lease apartments and houses rather than buy. Indeed, a government report issued yesterday seems to second that idea: while the price of a newly built home rose over winter and spring, it fell by more than 15,000 dollars from June to July.
IRAQ -- MORE MIXED MESSAGES ON TROOP WITHDRAWALS: The Financial Times reports that General Douglas Lute, director of operations at CENTCOM, said yesterday that the U.S. could be expected to pull a significant number of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months. Citing General John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. troops in the region, Lute maintained that the reductions would be part of a general effort shift the burden to Iraqi forces. Said Lute: “We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the…coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward.” But two weeks ago, President Bush said that no decision has yet been made on troop withdrawals. And just yesterday, Bush said that an immediate withdrawal would “only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations.” “So long as I'm the President,” Bush continued, “we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.”
August 25, 2005
ENERGY
Administration Fuels High Prices
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Bolton Already Obstructing Reform
UNDER THE RADAR
Go Beyond The Headlines
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up | Contact us | Permalinks/Archive | Mobile | RSS | Print
ENERGY
Administration Fuels High Prices
Yesterday, with gas over $3 a gallon in many areas of the country, the Bush administration unveiled new fuel efficiency standards. The administration proposal squanders an opportunity to reduce demand for fuel - and actually encourages automakers to produce bigger, more fuel inefficient vehicles. Worse, the rules secretly undermine state efforts to do better. California recently approved a plan that "will require a 30 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks by 2016, a target that will most likely be met by big increases in fuel efficiency." The approach is gaining popularity and "George Pataki of New York and other Eastern governors have pledged to emulate it." But buried on page 150 of the regulations is this provision: "[A] state may not impose a legal requirement relating to fuel economy, whether by statute, regulation or otherwise, that conflicts with this rule. A state law that seeks to reduce motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions is both expressly and impliedly preempted." In other words, the Bush administration has indicated it is determined to undercut California and all other states seeking to improve the administration's feeble proposal. If the administration is successful we will all pay the price.
ADMINISTRATION THWARTS BILLIONS IN FUEL SAVINGS: The California plan "would save far more at the pump for the state's residents than the White House plan." The plan would deliver Californians "annual net gas savings of more than $1 billion by early next decade." (States like New York, that were expected to adopt similar proposals could have expected similar savings.) In all likelihood, that projection significantly understates the actual savings. It's based on "low projections for gas prices" -- around $1.50 a gallon -- that "woefully understate the potential benefits of fuel efficiency."
NEW FUEL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF INEFFICIENT VEHICLES: For the past 30 years "fuel economy regulations have divided each automaker's annual production into two categories, cars and light duty trucks." The new Bush administration regulations "would divide the current light truck fleet [including SUVs] into six classes, with each class being determined by wheelbase (length) and track width (width)." (The largest vehicles -- like the Hummer H2, Ford Excursion, and some models of the Chevy Suburban -- remain completely exempt.) That system "encourages automakers to build larger vehicles in order to qualify for weaker fuel economy standards, resulting in lower fleet wide fuel economy." Thus, even the extraordinarily modest fuel savings that the administration predicts -- 10 billion gallons of gas savings over nearly two decades (less than a month's supply) -- is purely speculative. For example "Ford could add less than an inch to the dimensions of its Explorer Sport Trac and move it from a class with a fuel target of 24.5 m.p.g. to one with 23.3 in 2011 models." Automakers have shown a willingness to game the system in the past: "When the current regulatory system was created three decades ago, 80 percent of the vehicles automakers produced were cars. Today, more than half are light trucks, partly a result of the category's lesser fuel requirements."
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY COULD CREATE REAL SAVINGS: The administration proposal "would raise the fuel economy standards for light trucks - a vehicle category which includes pickup trucks and SUVs - by a trivial 1.8 miles per gallon over the 2008 to 2011 vehicle model years." We can do much, much better. According to the Sierra Club "technology exists today to make all vehicles average 40 miles per gallon fleet wide within ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver $2,200 in fuel savings over the lifetime of their vehicle." Alternatively, a simple, attainable proposal to close the gap in fuel standards between cars and light trucks would "cut fuel costs for truck buyers by at least 25 percent, equivalent to reducing gasoline prices to below $2.00 per gallon from today’s record high of more than $2.60."
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Bolton Already Obstructing Reform
It hasn't taken John Bolton long to undermine U.N. reform efforts. Weeks before world leaders from 170 countries are to gather in New York to discuss "the most sweeping changes at the United Nations in its 60-year history," the U.S. delegation led by Bolton has "thrown the proceedings in turmoil" with demands for a "drastic renegotiation" of the draft reform plan. Never mind that the current document is the result of "nearly a year of intensive negotiations" in which the United States "has been a regular participant" and so "has had a major impact on the document to date." Bolton has decided to introduce at the last minute more than 750 amendments that would "eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations [and] scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms." Bolton was sent to the UN not to reform it, but to weaken it, and he’s already hard at work.
SENDING REFORM BACK TO STEP ONE: Bolton has also suggested that one option "would be to return to square one and launch line-by-line negotiations on the document." With diplomats warning that the "most determining factor is shortage of time" between now and September's summit, this strategy is a clear effort to throw a wrench in the gears of U.N. reform. A top U.N. General Assembly today warns of just that: "[T]he big risk now is that [other countries] will see this big shopping list as an opportunity to return with their own shopping lists and then the whole thing may unravel." It seems that Bolton’s real motive is to turn the September world summit into a fiasco, either by making sure that nothing is agreed to, or that the consensus document is devoid of any significant reform.
THE WAR ON THE WAR ON POVERTY: As President Bush has pointed out, "Persistent poverty and oppression can lead to hopelessness and despair. And when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror." Yet John Bolton wants to eliminate most of the portions of the draft document that address alleviating global poverty. His amendments "call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long." Moreover, Bolton has told foreign delegates that he is concerned "about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries."
FOR BOLTON, SIZE MATTERS: The Bush administration's true commitment to U.N. reform can also be judged by the importance it has placed on the draft document's length. The administration's official response to the draft, released earlier this month, includes sentences such as "the document is too long and not worded in a manner that heads of state normally agree to or endorse," "The development section is over 15 pages long," and "the section on security...focuses far too much on disarmament rather than nonproliferation; it is also too long." In recent days, John Bolton has suggested "that the entire document could be scrapped and replaced with a brief statement," or at most "a punchier three-page version." How in the world do you construct a more dynamic and effective U.N. with a three page document? The fact is you don’t.
BOLTON OPPOSES TOUGH POSITION AGAINST GENOCIDE: Apparently the Bush administration hasn't learned the lessons taught by the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, during which the international community failed to intervene effectively in cases of mass human rights violations. The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration "opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing." (American Progress feels differently, and has launched the Responsibility to Protect program to present our case.)
Under the Radar
LEGION DECLARES WAR ON ANTIWAR: The American Legion, a veterans’ organization with 2.7 million members, has “declared war” on antiwar protestors, Editor and Publisher reports. During remarks at the group’s national convention in Honolulu, the Legion’s commander Thomas Cadmus called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war, even though they are protected by the Bill of Rights. “The American Legion,” he said, “will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples.” The delegates at the convention then voted to use whatever means necessary to “ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.”
ENERGY -- HIGHER COST OF GAS MEANS TAXPAYERS PAYING MORE TO TRANSPORT BUSH: Rising gas prices means that it costs more to transport President Bush and his staff. Unlike most Americans, Bush doesn't have to foot the bill. "Almost every vehicle Bush uses is custom-made to add security and communications capabilities, and the heavier weight of these guzzlers further drives up gas and jet fuel costs." The White House refused a request for comment on the overall effect of higher fuel prices on its budget. While Bush may not have much say over the types of transportation his entourage uses, Bush drives a Ford F250 pickup truck on his ranch in Crawford that requires approximately $75 to fill the tank. The AP writes, "Reducing his appearances outside the White House and making other gestures toward fuel conservation could help cut down on costs."
NATIONAL SECURITY -- CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION PROVIDES VALUABLE GLIMPSE INTO SMEAR TACTICS OF WHITE HOUSE: The Los Angeles Times reports that the information which has become public to date through the investigation of the Valerie Plame outing reveals a White House that is adept at smearing its critics. "Beyond the whodunit, the affair raises questions about the credibility of the Bush White House, the tactics it employs against political opponents and the justification it used for going to war." Meanwhile, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin continues to reinvent facts in an effort to defend his client. "The one thing that's absolutely clear is that Karl was not the source for the leak and there's no basis for any additional speculation," Luskin said. Recall this is the same Luskin who said Rove "did not disclose any confidential information about anybody to [Time reporter Matt] Cooper" and that Rove had testified "absolutely truthfully" about all his conversations with reporters about Plame.
BAD NEWS FOR THE HOUSING BOOM: The New York Times reported this morning that rents are again rising across the country—an indication that the housing boom could be reaching its peak. According to Global Real Analytics, a research company in San Francisco, rents in about 85% of large metropolitan areas climbed last year. With mortgage rates growing, the rise in rent is a sign that people are increasingly looking to lease apartments and houses rather than buy. Indeed, a government report issued yesterday seems to second that idea: while the price of a newly built home rose over winter and spring, it fell by more than 15,000 dollars from June to July.
IRAQ -- MORE MIXED MESSAGES ON TROOP WITHDRAWALS: The Financial Times reports that General Douglas Lute, director of operations at CENTCOM, said yesterday that the U.S. could be expected to pull a significant number of troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months. Citing General John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. troops in the region, Lute maintained that the reductions would be part of a general effort shift the burden to Iraqi forces. Said Lute: “We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the…coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward.” But two weeks ago, President Bush said that no decision has yet been made on troop withdrawals. And just yesterday, Bush said that an immediate withdrawal would “only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations.” “So long as I'm the President,” Bush continued, “we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.”
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 8:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home