Webb to Oppose Tough Fuel Economy Standards?

By: TheGreenMiles
Published On: 6/20/2007 10:27:54 AM

From today's Washington Post editorial:

[T]he Senate energy bill's more stringent CAFE measure must prevail over the Pryor-Bond-Levin amendment. According to environmental advocates, three senators stand in the way of that possibly happening: Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and Sen. James Webb (D-Va.). We did our whip count yesterday, and here's what we learned. Mr. Warner told us he "has decided to vote against the amendment." Mr. Webb said he "is inclined" to support it. That leaves Ms. Mikulski, whose office didn't return our call or e-mail. If she's still on the fence, she should follow Mr. Warner's wise lead.

A strong new CAFE level and a national renewable energy standard must be included in the Senate energy bill for it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and take the first steps towards slowing global warming (more details here).  You can tell the auto industry and Big Oil are worried by the way they're bombarding the DC airwaves with commericals opposing the provisions -- at least one during each commercial break on WTOP news radio this morning.

Why would Sen. Webb oppose a 35 miles per gallon fuel economy standard?  The vote could take place today, so please call Sen. Webb's office at (202) 224-4024 and urge him to oppose the Pryor-Bond-Levin amendment.

Comments



He said he "is inclined" to support it. (Todd Smyth - 6/20/2007 12:12:47 PM)
That does not mean he opposes it.  It means he is inclined to support it, which is the opposite of your headline.  He also said last week, he would support the Bingham/Reid renewable energy amendment.


Wow, Webb is really dropping the ball on the environment. (Rob - 6/20/2007 12:46:19 PM)
First, offshore drilling.  Now this?


Unfortunately, energy and environment (Lowell - 6/20/2007 12:51:50 PM)
are turning out to be areas where I find myself disagreeing with Sen. Webb more and more.  If anything, I'd crank up the CAFE standards in this bill even faster, not slower!  I would also point out that what's been killing the American auto industry is NOT tough environmental standards in this country, but the extra $1,500 per vehicle that it costs to make a car in the USA due in large part to our lack of universal health care coverage.  Finally, I'd note that many other car companies, such as Toyota, are doing just fine building fuel efficient vehicles like the Prius.  Is there any reason why good ol' American ingenuity can't come up with 50 mpg or even 100 mpg vehicles that work great while slashing our oil consumption and carbon emissions?  Of course, this IS the same auto industry which said that everything from the seat belt to the air bag to the catalytic converter would kill the auto industry.  What. Ever.


Which is why I say (novamiddleman - 6/20/2007 12:54:20 PM)
let them rot.  The U.S. government has no right to tell private business how to operate.  If the big three still cant see the writing on the wall I give up.


Again, I laid this all out before... (Lowell - 6/20/2007 12:56:43 PM)
...but this is both a national security issue AND a major environmental issue.  If the government doesn't do something, who will exactly?

Also, you're really willing to say "let them rot" to America's auto industry?  Personally, I want to help make it stronger, not lose one of the few remaining elements of our once mighty industrial base.



Another difference (novamiddleman - 6/20/2007 1:18:45 PM)
This might be a bit harsh but I have a reputation of being blunt nothing personal :-p

Liberals rely on government to fix problems

Conservatives rely on individuals

As a slight aside something to think about look at how the government has done with regards to the "war on drugs"  now compare that to the "war on terror"

As far as rescuing the auto industry to put it bluntly once again :-p evolove or die.  Do we really want to subsizide another industry that has seen the writing on the wall for decades but still refuses to change.

That by the way is what this is all about much like ethanol or farms or a host of other issues.  As an elected representative how can I protect an industry that will help me get elected.

So in the end, Webb isn't that far off from his  protectionist tendencies now is he. 

Your anger comes from placing a higher permium on the environment than protection of industry

I almost always favor a true free market over protectionisim although as stated before tax breaks or incentives to help start-up new industries with inherant disadvantage against incumbants are ok for a limited amount and firm timeframe

I wonder if Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, etc received any government subsidies when they were entering the auto industry. 



Let them rot is (Eric - 6/20/2007 1:23:41 PM)
not the best approach as you point out, but if the government does anything to support the current automotive leadership then that leadership will continue to stay in place and act the same they always have.  They will continue to be a major road block to safety and environmental progress.

Perhaps the government needs to offer some seriously big carrots to any U.S. auto companies (existing or new players) provided that those companies play by certain rules.  I mean something like if an automobile company produces a fleet of vehicles where every vehicle gets over 60 mpg, then that company pays zero taxes for 10 years and is given billions in subsidies for R&D, manufacturing infrastructure upgrades, and even marketing.

Whatever the exact nature of the carrots (fill in your own favorite), this approach does not force rules and regulations on any auto company, but allows companies that  follow progressive ideas designed to improve safety and the environment to benefit greatly.  This is incentive for the existing companies to clean up their act and for new companies to consider jumping into the very difficult automotive industry.

The key is driving out the old anti-progress mentality that the current auto industry leaders have.  Whether that's replacing leaders or companies doesn't matter much as long as it is replaced somehow.  And for the sake of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base it would be very good if some of these new philosophy companies were U.S. based.  But if the old guys truly can't change then letting them rot may be the only option.  Allowing them to continue to set the environmental agenda is not an option any longer.



Virginia Sierra Club urges action (Lowell - 6/20/2007 12:58:39 PM)
URGENT: Call Senator Webb Today!

Dear Lowell,

A critical vote on automobile fuel efficiency standards is coming up today or Thursday at the latest. This is our opportunity to raise fuel efficiecy standards to begin to address global warming and our nation's energy security.

Problem:

  Unfortunately, Senator Levin of Michigan, representing the Detroit auto makers and not the public interest, is sponsring a weakening amendment which Sierra Club considers a "poison pill", that is, it is so bad that it worse than nothing. 

Solution:

  Senator Webb is a key swing vote. He needs to hear from you today by phone and by e-mail urging him to support real action on global warming including strong auto fuel efficiency standards, and urging him to OPPOSE Senator Levin's amendment to weaken fuel efficiency standards.. 

Action Needed:

  Call Senator Jim Web today at 202-224-4024.  Also e-mail him by following our link below. 

  Tell Senator Webb to OPPOSE Senator Levin's amendment to weaken auto fuel efficiency standards and to SUPPORT real measures to address global warming.

  You may have to leave a message so please follow our link and send an e-mail as well.

Deadline for responding: Please take action by June 21, 2007

See here for more and to take action.



Debate (DukieDem - 6/20/2007 2:35:41 PM)
Is on C-Span 2 right now.


Senate Passes Compromise Standards (Glant - 6/21/2007 11:57:04 PM)
According to CNN, the Senate voted earlier today to increase the fuel standard for both cars and SUVs to 35 MPG, an increase from the current 27.5 MPG for cars and 22.5 for SUVs and light trucks.

http://www.cnn.com/2...

The compromise legislation was passed without floor debate and without a roll call vote.  It now goes to the House for consideration.